To consider any Notices of Motion.

 

 

Two Notices of Motion were submitted.

 

NOTICE ONE

 

Councillors TM James, RI Matthews, SJ Robertson, A Seldon, PJ McCaull, AT Oliver, AM Toon, WU Attfield, and B Hunt submitted the following Notice of Motion as a matter of urgency:

 

“This Council notes the recent announcement in the advertisement columns of the local press announcing the sale of a substantial part of the smallholdings estate including three farms with sitting tenants.  We also note that a number of other tenants have been given notice to quit or face eviction.

 

There was a clear undertaking made by the Cabinet Member and officers at a special meeting of the Strategic Monitoring Committee meeting on 10 December that no change in the Council’s policy would be taking place.  On being asked whether there were plans to instigate a policy of selling holdings the Cabinet Member and officers indicated that there was none.

 

We now know that four days after that meeting letters were sent to tenants informing them that their homes and livelihoods were to be placed on the market to sell to a private landlord.  This having been done without any consultation with Councillors, tenants or the public.  This is clearly seen by the public and agricultural rural community as a major policy change and should have been treated as a key decision, this decision having been made privately by the Cabinet Member and officers should have been subject to full and open debate.

 

For eighty years the retention of our smallholdings estate has been seen across the political divide as a vitally important part of the economic and social fabric of our County, being the only route available to young working people to enter farming.

 

Therefore this Council instructs the Cabinet to withdraw the sale of holdings on the Nieuport estate and begin a consultation on the future of our smallholdings in this County.”

 

The Chairman will rule whether the motion is urgent.

 

 

NOTICE TWO

 

Councillors ACR Chappell, AT Oliver, AM Toon, RI Matthews, JB Williams, AE Gray, TM James, C Bartrum, WJ Walling, PJ McCaull, GA Powell H Davies, A Seldon, WS Bowen, JD Woodward, PJ Edwards, SJ Robertson, SPA Daniels, WU Attfield, DJ Benjamin, AP Taylor, MAF Hubbard and B Hunt submitted the following Notice of Motion as a matter of urgency:

“Based on the evidence collated by the St Martin’s Community Swimming Support Group, the current swimming provision is clearly a compromise which is untenable for all users and providers.

 

Therefore, we recommend that Herefordshire Council support the St Martins Community Swimming Support Group by committing funds to be made available for the necessary repair works to the St Martins Pool, enabling the pool to re-open in September 2009 to address the needs of the whole community.”

 

 

The Chairman will rule whether the motion is urgent.

The Chairman informed Council that two notices of motion had been received, one proposed by Councillor TM James on smallholdings and the another proposed by Councillor ACR Chappell on the LEA Pool, urgency was moved on both items.  The Chairman proposed that the first debate would be on the LEA pool with any discussion relating to this item dealt within the debate and not in any other part of the agenda.

 

Councillor ARC Chappell had submitted the following Notice of Motion, which was duly seconded.

 

Based on the evidence collated by the St Martin’s Community Swimming Support Group, the current swimming provision is clearly a compromise which is untenable for all users and providers.

 

Therefore, we recommend that Herefordshire Council support the St Martin’s Community Swimming Support Group by committing funds to be made available for the necessary repair works to the St Martin’s Pool, enable the pool to re-open in September 2009 to address the needs of the whole community.

 

Councillor ACR Chappell, speaking for the motion stated that 23 Councillors had signed the notice of motion, including three opposition group leaders and informed Members that several more signatures would have been added to the notice of motion had it been allowed, e.g. PTA, Sports Clubs.  He was pleased to see young people in the chamber who had come to listen to the debate.  The following points were raised by Councillor Chappell as the proposer of the motion:

 

• The Cabinet had asked that the community get involved in developing plans for any future running of the LEA pool and work had been carried out across the community in the drafting of a report with several meetings having taken place.  Letters in support of reopening the LEA pool had been received, including from an Olympic swimmer.

 

• Reference was made to the St Martin’s Community Swimming Support Group Report within which concerns were expressed about the current arrangements of school swimming provision in the Hereford leisure pool and which outlined reasons for the reopening of the LEA pool.  Members were informed that Councillor AT Oliver had undertaken detailed work regarding financial projections relating to the re-opening of the LEA pool. 

 

• The report outlined the problems with the current school swimming arrangements within Hereford leisure pool which included:

·         the sharing of the pool with others (including adults)

·         the negative impact of the leisure pool environment on teaching practices which included reduced teacher/pupil contact both in terms of sight and hearing due to high walls and disparate location of teaching groups. 

·         A 50% decrease in awards achieved since the closure of the LEA pool. 

 

• He stated that during school time, the responsibility of children lay with teachers and support staff, therefore it was important that the environment within which teachers and staff were required to oversee their charges was appropriate.  Within the current arrangements, safety could not be guaranteed and as there was a high degree of risk, staff should not have to bear the responsibility of the situation.

 

• Learning to swim was an important marker in the development and progression of children and the process of learning assisted in building the confidence of youngsters.  To date, 10 schools had stopped arranging swimming classes in the leisure pool and it was stated that other schools were considering their position.

 

• He informed Members of a memorial on the riverbank in St Martins/Hinton ward which was dedicated to a pupil from Marlbrook School who drowned nearby.  The Wye Drown Memorial was established following a cross party campaign which sought to raise awareness of the dangers of the river.  It was important for every child to have due regard to the danger of rivers.

 

• He stated that consideration by Cabinet in April to re-open the LEA pool would be too late, as the budget for the forthcoming year would be set at the March council meeting.  A decision to reopen the LEA pool needed to be made during today’s meeting to ensure the provision of purpose built facilities within which children were taught to swim.

 

• A named vote was requested on this motion and Councillor Chappell, as the proposer, reserved his right to speak at the end of the debate.

 

Councillor AT Oliver seconded the motion and made the following comments:

 

• The LEA pool was not a community swimming pool but was dedicated to school use with 38 schools using the facility prior to its closure.  The LEA pool was subsidised through the education budget.  For the other 43 schools in the county, the cost of swimming over and above the half hour fee of £65 paid by the school was met out of environment budget through the £1,085million management fee paid to HALO.

 

• Given that all schools were therefore in receipt of subsidy from the authority (either from the education or environment budget), Members attention was drawn to the dichotomy in which the Schools Forum recommended the closure of the LEA pool on financial grounds due to the perceived inequality of use of education budget for 38 schools, whilst no reference was made to the subsidy received by the other 43 schools via the environment directorate’s payment of the Halo management fee.

 

• The majority of primary schools would be in favour of re-opening the LEA pool as concerns had been expressed about safety in the leisure pool and its wider public access

 

• Members were advised that detailed calculations had been undertaken to assess LEA pool’s financial situation.  In broad terms, the Council was informed that given an investment of £282,500 (£72,500 to re-open and £210,000 to upgrade with energy efficiencies) the LEA pool could continue to be a useful asset for at least a further 10 years at a cost of less than £30,000 per year.  The capital monies to support the LEA pool could be drawn from the income gained by the Bradbury Lines (Taylor/Wimpy) housing development.

 

• Further financial details were provided relating to the estimated budget for running the pool and of projected income which could be raised by the pool being used out of school hours by other clubs, organisations and private individuals.  The deficit between running costs and income would be met by efficiencies and consideration would be given to the transfer of the LEA pool’s management to HALO to achieve economies of scale.  By using comparative data from HALO’s management of other leisure pools, Members were informed that savings in the region of £56,000 could be achieved.  With an uplift for schools from £65 to £85 per half hour swimming session, a break even situation could be demonstrated for the re-opening of the LEA pool.

 

• In closing, Members were advised that whilst the re-opening of the LEA pool was a viable option in accounting terms, it was necessary to ensure the quality and capacity of the current full swimming provision to Herefordshire’s children.

 

Councillor SJ Robertson spoke in support of the motion and stated the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee had made strong cross party representation about opening the pool and said that the Council was failing in its provision.  There was a statutory duty for all to children to swim 25 meters and she expressed concern that there was evidence of a 51% reduction in the number of children achieving badges, and a substantial decrease in achieving challenge awards.  She additionally made the following comments;

• Members were informed that there had been an instance of double booking of the leisure pool facility which caused unnecessary cost to the school and disappointment to the children.  Concern was expressed that during a recent swimming lesson, a child suffered an asthma attack and due to the leisure pool’s high wall the child had to swim to a shallow area whilst suffering the attack.

 

• It was stated that due to travel time concerns existed about the amount of teaching time lost and the knock on impact of less time in which swimming skills could be developed.  The concerns of teachers, who had a duty of care for the children, were being ignored whilst the LEA pool had annually received good OFSTED reports.

 

• The Member commented that as the authority had a new post of Swimming Co-ordinator, supported by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, why had the officer’s views not been sought on the issues and why were schools not made aware of the appointment?

 

• Concerns were additionally raised about the safety of the general public in the leisure pool as due to the schools use of the pool, the general public were regularly being restricted to a small number of lanes.

 

Councillor PJ Edwards appreciated the Cabinet Member ICT Education and Achievement difficult role however he stated that Members needed to be provided with data which detailed the number of pupils in receipt of swimming lessons and the number of pupils who had met the minimum accredited requirement of 25 meters and had received an award in the last three years.  He was pleased to acknowledge that £200,000 had been received from Central Government to support under 16 and over 60 free swimming and quoted the Leader’s statement from the press release issued that free swimming ‘would be popular across the county’.  However it was emphasised that capacity needed to be available in the swimming pools to enable those individuals taking advantage of the free swimming facility to use it.

 

Councillor J Pemberton wished to place on record that the individual who drowned in the River Wye referred to earlier in the debate could swim, but was caught in the undercurrent of the river Wye.  It was important to inform children not to go in the river, regardless of their level of swimming skills.

 

Councillor TM James stated that:

·         The four main swimming pools in the County should, according to statistical data, be capable of delivering leisure and lesson provision.  However, he highlighted that the Hereford leisure pool serviced half the population of the county and that the levels of capacity in the pool was scarce.  He stated that it was clear that there had been a reduction in the number of children trained and the time spent in the water (due to travel time etc) since the closure of the LEA pool, whist at the same time capacity in the leisure pool for public swimming had been curtailed.

 

·         It was vital for the Council to improve facilities in the LEA pool as the current situation was reducing the number of hours spent in the water which had a direct impact on the building of children’s confidence.

 

·         The authority should be increasing the level of investment in swimming with the budgetary cost to reopen the LEA pool negligible in the broader scheme – the facility was of vital importance for the future of children.

 

·         The reopening of the pool should be done immediately as it was one of the most important functions provided by the council.

 

Councillor WU Attfield informed Council that the LEA Pool provided learning for South Wye, City and beyond and that the facility had been established as a Learning pool which was not solely based around swimming.  The councillor commented on a recent swimming class that she had observed and stated that the changing room facilities were not appropriate (formerly used as a team sport changing room), the children were crowded in some parts of the pool, and as they were grouped according to ability were disparate and separated into four unequal groups

 

• Lessons should be constructed to enable positive learning outcome and it was important to assess each child individually in terms of progress and improvement within each session so that the base line could be determined for future lessons. 

 

• The acoustics in the leisure pool were of a poor teaching quality and the configuration of the pool did not allow the teacher a visual overview of the 20-30 children in their care and it was therefore stated that the leisure pool was not a tenable place to teach.

 

• As it was important to encourage a culture of lifelong learning it was stated that swimming was one of the few sporting activities that could be undertaken by a lone individual to help maintain a healthy life and therefore it was essential that the Council should not discard a source of swimming for the benefit of the community.  There was a need for the Council to give consideration in the long term for swimming capacity within the county.

 

Councillor A Blackshaw stated that he would be happy to discuss further with Councillor Oliver the financial information which had been shared with the Council and that he would be pleased to receive the business plan once prepared and finalised, which would include detailed analysis of the potential additional income stream. He stated that he was proud that by the annual investment of £1million in Halo allowed for the employment of good capital and advised Members that Halo had recently succeeded in gaining the Investors in People award, which was a credit to its management team.  Members were advised that capital expenditure in HALOs assets was substantial with £266,000 provided by the Council and a further investment of £111,000 by HALO.  In referring to the free swimming, Councillor Blackshaw advised the Council that the Minister had complimented Herefordshire Council on providing this opportunity for under 16 and over 60.  It was additionally stated that Sport England had undertaken an audit of water space within Herefordshire and had reported that the provision was adequate for a population of 180,000 prior to the building of the facility in Leominster.

 

Councillor JD Woodward drew members’ attention to ward profiles and specifically the number of individuals under 16 and over 60 population who would be entitled to free swimming.  Within Hereford City the number of people entitled to this provision would be 23,100, within Ross on Wye 4,600, Leominster 4,900, Ledbury 4,600.  Taking the County as a whole, 81,300 individuals would be entitled to claim free swimming.  It was stated that the capacity in the Hereford leisure pool would be further curtailed and consideration may be given to the introduction of a time limited banding system.  It was emphasised that in terms of free swimming entitlement, Hereford had to make provision to a potential take up which was equivalent of five times the size of Leominster with similar sized facilities.

 

• A response was sought on how much the free swimming entitlement would cost the authority once the £200,000 had been spent and whether it would continue in forthcoming years.  It was stated that it was probable that due to the current economic climate, those entitled to free swimming would be encouraged to take up the opportunity.

 

• Concerns were expressed regarding the B1 Membership of HALO which provided unlimited access to facilities at an annual cost of £399.00.  As capacity in the leisure pool for the wider public had been curtailed to accommodate school use, the terms of the membership would be challenged as it was not fully delivering under its written terms and conditions.  Not only was the Council failing the children with the closure of the LEA pool it was also as a consequence failing to provide adequately for the rest of the citizens.

 

Councillor RI Matthews informed Members that he had supported the motion from the outset.  Adding to the previous comments made regarding teaching environment, he emphasised the need for children to learn in relaxed environments as this assisted with learning.  He reiterated that there had been a 50% drop in qualifications gained since the closure of the LEA pool and stated that there was a genuine concern to reopen the pool and requested that the Cabinet Member listened to these concerns.  The Aylestone Councillors were informed of one school within their ward which was not providing swimming lessons to their pupils.

 

Councillor RJ Phillips reminded council of the work undertaken to establish a swimming pool in North Herefordshire, which was delivered by the authority in spite of a lack of support from Sport England, such situations needed to be reflected upon.  The Leader had met with the Minister and had held a frank discussion on the provision of free swimming.  Responding to a question posed earlier in the debate it was stated that whilst the free swimming entitlement was an added pressure on the revenue account the authority had taken a clear, informed decision to take up the opportunity and had therefore taken on board the risk/strain.  The Council was advised that free swimming provision had been made available in Wales and that it was important to learn from the examples across the border.

 

• The Leader informed Council that the Schools Forum did not wish to see the money spent on the LEA Pool and had stated that any monies to support the LEA pool should come from the general account.

 

• It was stated that in the papers to be considered by Council on 6 March, there would be a commitment in the capital programme for the county’s four leisure pools as a priority as it was important to ensure the principle of swimming provision – this approach has been backed up by information discussion with the DCMS’s Principal Secretary.  Members were informed that there was a huge demand on the capital programme and that the County’s leisure service was now better supported than if it had been maintained in house.  A further dialogue would take place in the next year with Halo, the Courtyard and leisure services

 

• Members were reminded that leisure was a non-statutory service which needed to be valued and that it was important to have clarity by which such services were supported, which were clearly outlined in the capital programme and the Medium Term Financial Strategy.  Herefordshire’s commitment to leisure services had been demonstrated in Leominster as the County was the only one in England to build a new swimming pool in an 18 month time period, which was built without any financial support from Government or national agencies but with the extension of the council’s borrowing facility with the support of local people.  The emphasis needed to be on examining the lifespan of existing leisure pools and to consider the longer term strategy of future service provision.

 

• The Leader commented that there would be safety and safeguarding issues around all facilities and should the LEA pool be re-opened how these issues were to be approached would need to be addressed. 

 

• The Council was reminded that the LEA Pool would be revisited by Cabinet before Easter 2009.

 

Councillor H Davies commented that as everyone was encouraged to develop and maintainHealthy lifestyles it was important for children to swim in safe places.

 

Councillor PM Morgan advised the Council that in light of her attendance at the recently held seminar on the budget that she would be opposing the motion.  In addition, she reminded Members that when residents were asked for their views on how spending on services should be balanced over the next four years, the latest research did not view leisure as a priority.  She commended the investment being made available for accessing of swimming provision for under 16 and over 60 as opposed to the option of putting money into fixed assets that the authority could not afford.

 

Councillor GFM Dawe in referring to Councillor Oliver’s contribution to the debate on financial considerations stated that the amount required to re-open the pool, £300,000, was minimal and there would be little draw from the Council’s budget to re-open the facility.

 

Councillor PD Price advised Council that he had listened intently to the comments made.  He had recently attended the Hereford City leisure pool unannounced during school swimming classes and had viewed the change over of four schools – the process of which was managed very efficiently by Halo staff.  During his visit three locations were being used within the leisure pool for teaching and several children were swimming the 26 lengths required for accredited ASA badge, many then going on to attempt for awards in diving.  He advised Members that HALO had assured the Council that it could meet the additional demands placed upon the facility.

 

• A business plan which outlined how the LEA pool would be run and operated would be considered at the Cabinet meeting on 2 April and any expectations placed on the Council to invest money would be examined.  The business plan would need to outline the aspirations of future demand and consider the long term whilst being mindful that the LEA pool under debate was built over 30 years ago. It would also be important to consider safeguarding issues in the business plan submitted.

 

• The Cabinet Member stated that he would look further into the number of pupils in receipt of swimming lessons and the number of pupils who had met the minimum accredited requirement of 25 meters and had received an award in the last three years, however he emphasised that he was in possession of the most up to date figures up to the end of January 2009 which accurately reflected the facts.  The Local Education Authority’s Swimming Training Teacher informed the Cabinet Member that 800 badges had been achieved since the closure of the LEA pool.  Cllr PD Price stated that he would seek assurance that the badges gained met the minimum ASA quality standard.

 

• He stated that investment should be put in the main leisure pool and should the capital become available should aspire to other facilities, not solely about the LEA pool.

 

• It was acknowledged that safeguarding was a critical issue and was rightly strictly governed by standards.  He was aware of the incident which occurred in January 09 and informed the council that had this incident occurred in the LEA pool all the children would have had to leave the pool due to the insufficient number of staff available to deal with the incident whilst overseeing the pool at the same time.  The incident therefore would have curtailed the lesson time for all the children.  Due to the amount of staff in the leisure pool, the lesson activity was able to continue at the same time as the child was receiving attention.

 

Councillor PJ McCaull – Advised the Council that he was very pleased with the leisure pool facility in Leominster and that a reception had been held for the paralympic athletes who trained in the Leominster pool and their success had brought much publicity for Herefordshire.  The pool accommodated the athletes training programme by making the facilities available out of public hours, however concern was expressed that the pool may be less accommodating to the training programme due to the increase capacity required to meet the pressures of free swimming provision.

 

• In referring to the need for the community to present a Business Plan, it was stated that the facts were clear, the supply of one pool in Hereford to support both leisure and learning was inadequate and that there was a detrimental impact to schools in both travel time and cost.

 

• A question regarding the availability of a business plan for the new cattle market site was posed as this would be a facility which would be unused for five to six days of the week.  It was stated that the Council should reconsider the cattle market scheme and allocate 50% of the current £10 million budget to its establishment which would allow for £5million to be spent in alternative ways.  The finance to re-open the LEA pool is within the Council’s budget, however it has been allocated to the wrong issue.

 

Councillor TM James stated that Members should be considering where and on what current finances were being spent, as it was his view that priorities were confused.  It was acknowledged that the County had four community leisure pools and until recently one dedicated LEA pool.  Hereford leisure pool currently supported half the population of the county.  Council Members were challenged to consider their role and responsibilities in this matter when, in his view, millions were being spent on trivia.

 

Councillor GA Powell asked whether the Cabinet Member had spoken with the swimming co-ordinator.  She informed the Council that 26 schools had indicated their commitment to returning to the LEA pool should it be re-opened.  It was essential that a duty of care needed to be shown and that this would be demonstrated by the immediate re-opening of the LEA pool.

 

Councillor ACR Chappell urged Members to think of the children in relation to the motion.  Council was advised that the report written stated that Herefordshire Swimming Club and Triathlon Club would support the re-opening of the LEA pool and would be interested in hiring the facilities out of hours.  LEA pool could be opened longer on weekdays and weekends, so that other young people could represent the county and their country.  Hope that Councillors looking at what needs to be done e.g leisure pool / teaching pool.  Staff to monitor number of pools.  Want children to learn to swim and give teachers the right facilities.  Rivers are dangerous places – confidence helps.  Need a dedicated learning pool.

 

Following a named vote, the result of which was; 19 votes cast for the motion, 28 votes cast against the motion, no abstentions, the Chairman announced that the motion was not carried.

 

Following the announcement of the vote, Councillor PJ Edwards presented the Chairman with letters of support to reopen the LEA pool.

 

The Council meeting was adjourned at 3.50 pm and reconvened at 4.00 pm. 

 

Prior to the commencement of the debate on the notice of motion on smallholdings Councillors PJ Edwards, D Greenow and RJ Phillips left the room.

 

Councillor TM James had submitted the following Notice of Motion, which was duly seconded.

 

This Council notes the recent announcement in the advertisement columns of the local press announcing the sale of a substantial part of the smallholdings estate including three farms with sitting tenants. We also note that a number of other tenants have been given notice to quit or face eviction.

 

There was a clear undertaking made by the Cabinet Member and officers at a special meeting of the strategic monitoring committee meeting on 10 December that no change in the Council’s policy would be taking place.  On being asked whether there were plans to instigate a policy of selling holdings the Cabinet Member and officers indicated that there was none.

 

We now know that four days after that meeting letters were sent to tenants informing them that their homes and livelihoods were to be placed on the market to sell to a private landlord.  This having been done without any consultation with Councillors, tenants or the public.  This is clearly seen by the public and agricultural rural community as a major policy change and should have been treated as a key decision, this decision having been made privately by the Cabinet Member and officers should have been subject to full and open debate.

 

For eighty years the retention of our smallholdings estate has been seen across the political divide as a vitally important part of the economic and social fabric of our County, being the only route available to young working people to enter farming.

 

Therefore this Council instructs the Cabinet to withdraw the sale of holdings on the Nieuport estate and begin a consultation on the future of our smallholdings in this County.

 

Councillor TM James, as the proposer of the motion, expressed the following statements:

·         He stated that the smallholdings issue was important to many of the County’s population as agriculture had historically been the backbone of the county, however he expressed disappointment that it had become evident that the agricultural industry was not held in as great an importance as it should be.  Smallholding families were active contributors to the economic and community life of the rural county and helped sustain village schools and facilities.  Historically smallholdings had enjoyed overwhelming all party support however he feared that this situation was now changing and that smallholdings were considered assets to be cashed.

 

·         Reference was made to consideration of a smallholdings report at the Strategic Monitoring Committee (SMC) of 10 December 2008 and it was stated that many present at that meeting were encouraged by the tone of the report.  However, the situation seemed to have changed since that meeting, and this had angered the councillor.  During the SMC meeting, Members were advised that there were no plans to sell smallholdings, however since that meeting valuations had been undertaken with agents and surveyors approached to prepare the smallholdings for onward sale with sitting tenants.

 

·         When the Cabinet Member was asked to provide clarification on the issue a reply was given that there was no knowledge of a sell off; the public and Members of the SMC were comforted by this definitive response.  Four days following the SMC meeting, tenants received letters informing them that their smallholding would be sold on the open market or to neighbouring farms with the letter additionally providing tenants with a notice to quit.  A firm view was expressed that both Members and the public had been misled by the discussions held at the SMC, it was additionally stated that no mention was made at the December meeting of the SMC of the policy agreed in 2005 in the joint conservative/independent administration.

 

Following a point of order, the Chairman advised Councillor TM James to moderate his language and to ensure that any further comments were pertinent to the issue under debate.

 

• Councillor TM James continued by stating that in current recession the selling off of a family business, and evicting people was a disgrace and that Council should be supporting local businesses not undermining their future viability.  It was stated that the agricultural community and rural area as a whole were appalled by this situation.

 

Prior to speaking on the motion, Councillor RI Matthews stated that he had sought legal advice due to this declaration of a personal interest and had been advised that this interest did not preclude him in taking part in the debate.  Councillor RI Matthews spoke in favour of the motion and expressed the view thatthe smallholdings issues had overtones of the small schools closure and was an embarrassing issue for the administration.  He raised concerns about the apparent lack of democratic processes in determining the potential selling of smallholdings and questioned the openness of the whole situation.  It was additionally stated that the current climate was the wrong time to be considering selling publicly owned assets as the sale would not provide a proper financial return for the taxpayer.  The Property Strategy agreed in during a joint administration in 2005 was referred to and the Members quoted directly from this document which state that, ‘Land that becomes available can be combined with adjoining holdings and planning opportunities will be considered’.  Councillor Matthews stated that had the decision to sell smallholdings been a key decision, the opportunity to hold a debate would have been available.

 

Councillor JW Hope MBE informed Council that letters outlining the notice to quit was usual practice with such a notice provided after five years.  The Councillor had personally lived on the estate up until he was 65.  The Farm Business Tenancy (FTB) scheme was set up with tenants and most tenants whose smallholdings may be sold would be continuing as normal. Consultations regarding these disposals had been taking place since January 2008 and prior to this date a possible sale was considered in 2005, no objections were received at this time.  Council was reminded that there had been various disposals during the stewardship of preceding local authorities, which had not always been to the benefit of the County.

 

Councillor SJ Robertson informed Members that she had attended the 10 December SMC and there was no indication of selling off any part of the smallholdings estate.  She said that two houses remained redundant from an amalgamation of farms three years ago and a planning application had been received for three dwellings on this site (It was also stated that this was the fifth occasion that a third party had informed the local ward member of a Council issue of which she was unaware).  Could not the empty properties be used to house families on the housing list.  The Councillor sought assurance, which was given, that the local ward member had been informed of the potential disposal of properties on the Neiuport Estate.  It was the view of the Councillor that whilst the amalgamation of farms was acceptable income should be generated from other properties.

 

Councillor JB Williams stated that following the SMC on 10 December 2008 he had been content in his understanding that the status quo would be maintained.  He told Council that he had been on smallholdings committees in prior authorities in which he contributed to tenancy decisions which provided opportunities for keen, capable young farmers to establish themselves in the agricultural business.  He acknowledged that the six years notice was not a good way in which to manage the smallholdings business and expressed concern that the estate may be considered an easy target and tenants did not deserve such a negative situation.  Assurance was sought that existing tenants would not be evicted. Council was informed that smallholding families made a great contribution to parish life and were an asset to the wider community and would be supporting the motion. 

 

Councillor JP French rose to ask Council to reject the Motion and began by stating her sensitivity to the strain on the tenants affected by the marketing exercise of the land at Almeley, particularly when homes and livelihoods were linked.

 

• It was stated that the market testing of part of the smallholding estate was transparent and had been advertised in line with council policy and should the tender be acceptable the capital receipt could assist the long term viability of the wider smallholdings estate.

 

• Council was reminded that the current smallholdings policy was approved by the previous joint administration at Cabinet in May 2005.  Former Councillor Charles Mason, Cabinet Member for agriculture and rural regeneration worked hard to ensure that all tenants’ accounts were up-to-date and he had approached tenants and brokered arrangements to ensure that outstanding debts were cleared.

 

• The smallholdings policy recommended the disposal of buildings and farms that required high levels of capital investment, which were expensive to maintain or were redundant.  The policy also recommended that £10 million of capital receipts be raised between April 2005 – March 2015.

 

• The property in question comprised of four farms and a parcel of 90 acres of wood and if the sale proceeded it would reduce the Council’s maintenance bill by around £500,000; currently rents received were £22,000, therefore it was clear that the Council could not rely on rent to cover maintenance costs.  Members were informed that the Council owned 73 tenant farms and managed the Buchanan Trust Estate which provided an entry point for first time farmers.  It was stated that therefore the marketing of four farms and a 90 acre wood did not equate to a substantial part of the smallholdings estate and should the sale proceed it would provide the potential to consider a proper level of capital investment in the maintenance and improvement of the wider smallholdings estate.

 

• The Council was advised that since 2002 the Council had spent £1milllion in both Capital and Revenue and a further £150,000 in revenue was scheduled for the current financial year.  The Cabinet Member stated that Members would be aware of the difficulties in prioritising the capital bids especially when there was a great need in terms of the County’s infrastructure and the Council’s statutory services such as adult and children’s’ social care. 

 

• Members were informed that a list of those properties sold during previous administrations was maintained, and it was acknowledged that rationalisation and appropriate sales were required to ensure investment and to safeguard the future overall viability of the smallholdings estate.

 

• The Cabinet Member outlined the business case for the disposal and stated that the sale of the land at Almeley was not a new proposal as it had been under consideration for the last three years and had almost been sold in the previous joint administration.  It was reported that all tenants were offered the opportunity to buy their holdings, with one offer received which was unfortunately unrealistic.

 

• The policy complied with government legislation and was compatible with the policies of other local authorities.  Members were advised that whilst the Council had a strong record of budget management, it should not be putting public money into high maintenance smallholdings to the detriment of other council-owned farms.

 

• Members were advised that in general terms, the Council was not required to consult with all Councillors, all tenants or the public in respect of proposed individual transactions for non-operational properties.  In February 2008 valuations and fee bids were sought from four agents for the marketing of the land at Almeley and since that part of the process all relevant tenants had been kept fully informed of developments and had been supported in the process and provided advice.  Tenants had been advised in November 2008 that the properties would be marketed on 18 December and all tenants agreed to fully co-operate with the agents with numerous visits made to the farms to ensure that communication was maintained by all concerned and that assistance was provided to Agents in familiarising prospective purchasers with the holdings.

 

• The Cabinet Member outlined the tenancies involved, one tenant had agreed to a voluntary surrender of the tenancy at an agreed level of compensation; another tenant , should the estate be purchased privately, would acquire a life tenancy in place of a retirement tenancy; and the remaining tenants would continue their existing agreements which would be assured to the end of their current terms.

 

• Across the smallholdings estate, eight tenants were issued with a notice to quit in January 2008, of these; 3 were offered renewals at the same time as part of the tenancy renewal process, two were subject to proposals at Model Farm (the authority’s new business park project); two were re-considered and renewals offered following discussion with the tenant and their retained agents, one tenancy was due to be terminated in September 2009 as part of the rationalisation process to dispose of high maintenance buildings.  The retained land would be split between neighbouring smallholdings.

 

• The then Director of Resources’ draft report presented to SMC on 10 December was for consideration and consultation on the proposals and recommendations for a revised strategy for the smallholdings estate.  The revised strategy re-affirmed the need to rationalise the estate and that disposals would continue where appropriate.

 

• Members were informed that the draft revised strategy report considered by SMC included the following recommendations:-

·         That the Council retains the smallholding estate as a valuable strategic asset, whilst recognising that further rationalisation might be necessary.

·         That the Council revokes the financial target of achieving £10 million in Capital receipts over 10 years.

·         To reinvest in the estate.

 

• During the past 10 years, the Council had raised just over £3 million in sales, however turnover in the smallholdings had enabled only 10 new tenancies.

 

• The draft strategy would be considered by Cabinet later in the year following a further review by the new Director of Resources in which he would be consulting with tenants about the smallholdings estate.

 

• The Council was assured that the agricultural estate would be retained and that investment would be made in agriculture and the wider economic priorities of the County.  The Curry recommendations would be supported. 

 

• Regular meeting between the Council and tenant representatives, including Herefordshire Federation of Young Farmers would be established and the authority would collaborate with managers of other agricultural estates in the public and private sector.  It was additionally stated that the Council would re-consider the proposed length of tenancies to ensure they provided for proper business development and sustainable enterprise.  The Director of Resources would additionally consider the period of time of ‘holding over’ for seven months.

 

• The Cabinet Member stated that she was not in a position to confirm the allegations made, however the new Director of Resources would be putting a new imprint on the strategy, however it was essential that money was made available to invest in and provide for future opportunities in smallholdings.

 

Councillor RH Smith thanked the Cabinet Member for the clear, well reasoned answer.  He advised Council that he would be voting against the motion.

 

Councillor GFM Dawe sought clarification on the implication that the £3.99million raised from disposals since 2005 had been invested in smallholdings maintenance, and not elsewhere.

 

Councillor AJM Blackshaw informed Council that the national smallholdings scheme came into effect in 1918 and had a proud history of providing support to soldiers returning from the first world war.  He stated that agriculture was vital to the economy and that the authority had an emotional and historic duty of care to the wider smallholdings estate, however it was also important that the Council managed its assets well and gave consideration to its broader issues.  Members were reminded that the Council had a big commitment with the relocation of the cattle market, which was a substantial and justifiable investment.  In addition, time, energy and capital would be invested into the butter market, which would be vital to local food procurement and the 10 mile diet.  The Cabinet Member emphasised that agriculture was vital to the county’s economy and was important to the Council as a whole.

 

Councillor H Davies commented that during the current credit crunch the council should be supporting local businesses, not taking them livelihoods and homes.

 

Councillor PM Morgan advised Members that she supported the smallholdings estate, however she emphasised the need to ensure value for money and the need for the Council to focus on and achieve its wider objectives.  It was restated that disposal of the properties in question was agreed three years ago, and whilst times had changed economically, the costs to the Council are maintained.  It was stated that the Council’s assets needed to be managed appropriately.

 

Councillor AT Oliver informed Members that during the SMC meeting, the question was put to the then Director of Resources whether there had been any consideration of smallholdings’ sales and the response was that there would be no sales of smallholdings.  He stated that the smallholdings should be retained unless there was a corporate priority for such a sale.

 

Councillor JG Jarvis advised Members that the smallholdings would retain fully protected tenancies no matter who owned the property, this fact needed to be recognised and considered as part of the debate.

 

Councillor DB Wilcox took exception to any suggestion implied or otherwise of lack of transparency in relation to the SMC meeting in December 2008.

 

Councillor PD Price recognised that the debate was on an emotional topic.  As a farmer all his working life, he advised Council that he had been at the end of various contractual obligations.  The FBT introduced clearly set out the period of time and the contractual obligations for the tenancy which included the one year notice to quit.  He stated that he considered that there was a wider debate which needed to be held about the direction in which agriculture was going, however on this issue, by using FBT tenants are taken on board and know from the outset the obligations within the tenancy.  It was recognised that the Council needed to work with tenants in a more constructive way and to consider future impact.  However, it was stated that there was also a need to recognise that the Council might need to sell assets to raise capital, with the option to ring fence some or all of the capital raised for the benefit of smallholdings.  It was reiterated that a review of smallholdings was to be the subject of further consideration by the Director of Resources and that through this review there would be an open debate to consider the six year contract and considerations given to options to extend through agreements, however it was emphasised that contracts were a two sided agreement.  He made clear that this issue was not about forcing people out of homes.  He additionally advised Council that he had received much correspondence on the issue, and would be responding to all in due course.

 

Councillor TM James expressed his concern that Councillors, members of the public and other organisations in attendance on 10 December all had a similar understanding of the report considered and the discussion that was held and he stated that there was a clear change in policy, which was deceptive.  In referring to a comment raised regarding back rents, the Councillor advised Council that as the county was severely hit by the foot and mouth epidemic a policy decision was taken to manage the impact appropriately and as the agricultural industry suffered enormous difficulties, measures were put in place regarding payment of rents..

 

He stated that he was aware that of the three farms proposed for disposal the adjoining property had stated an interest.  He expressed doubt that a fraction of the money raised would be reinvested in modernising the estate and urged Members to support the notice of motion.

 

Following a named vote, the result of which was; 17 votes cast for the motion, 26 votes cast against the motion, no abstentions, the Chairman announced that the motion was not carried.

 

Councillors RJ Phillips and PJ Edwards rejoined the meeting for the remainder of the agenda.  Councillor Greenow had left the meeting.