To receive the report and to consider any recommendations to council arising from the meetings held on 21st August, 4th and 25th September and 9th and 23rd October, 2003.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor R.J. Phillips, presented the report of the meetings of Cabinet held on 21st August, 4th and 25th September and 9th and 23rd October, 2003.

In relation to  Item 2.1 - Notice of Motion by Councillors B. Hunt and P.J. Dauncey - In response to a request for an update Councillor Hunt was advised that the matter would be dealt with as part of the report on swimming pool provision in North Herefordshire which would be considered by Cabinet on 27th November, 2003.

In relation to Item 3.1 - Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO): A4103 Roman Road, Hereford, in response to a question on progress towards a start date of February 2004 Councillor Wilson, Cabinet Member (Highways and Transportation) advised that archaeological works were due to be completed in December 2003 and that the CPOs were currently with the Secretary of State.

In relation to Item 4.1(ii) - Council Tax Consultation, in response to a series of questions about  discounts for pensioners the Leader advised that this was a scheme that had been raised by other local authorities and a great deal of investigation and debate would be required before coming to any conclusion.  He warned that if discounts for pensioners were agreed a heavier tax-paying burden would fall on non-pension households, some of whom also have low incomes.  He advised that the Council would be considering reducing the discounts currently applied to second homes which would be more practical to implement and could raise up to £350,000 a year. 

In relation to Item 4.1(ix) - Local Area Forums, the Leader advised that review of the constitution would be submitted to Council in January but that he hoped the Local Area Forums would start again as soon as practicable.

In relation to Item 4.2(i) - Procurement of Contract Services - in response to a query on the adverse publicity Jarvis had received nationally, the Leader assured Council that the contract with Jarvis would be subject to scrutiny both by the Scrutiny Committees and by the Executive.  He advised Council that Jarvis was a many-faceted company and acknowledged that there had been considerable adverse publicity in relation to their rail operations.  However, Jarvis were addressing these issues.  He said he was confident that with proper monitoring the Jarvis contract would secure a good quality of service and represent value for money.

In relation to Item 4.2(vii) - LPSA Monitoring Report - in response to a query about potential difficulties in meeting agreed targets the Leader advised that some targets, e.g. in Education, were set extremely high.  The Government had relaxed its own targets in this area but had not yet passed those on to the LPSA targets.  He said milestones were now being included in the monitoring reports which were being considered both by Scrutiny Committees and the Executive.

In relation to Item 6.1(iii) - Public Library Position Statement - in answer to a question about lottery funding recently granted for Ledbury library, Councillor Stockton, Cabinet Member (Community and Social Development) gave an assurance that this scheme would move ahead as quickly as possible.

In relation to Item 7.1(ii) - Local Authority Business Growth Incentives (LABGI) - Councillor G.V. Hyde, Cabinet Member (Economic Development, Markets and Property) confirmed he would continue to apply pressure with regards to the flood alleviation scheme at Rotherwas, which was vital for the continued growth of the industrial estate.

In relation to Item 7.1(i) - Leominster Industrial Estate Access Road - Councillor R.M. Wilson, Cabinet Member (Highways and Transportation) confirmed that road works had commenced and that the business park should be open during the summer of 2004.

In relation to Item 8.1(i) - Children's Centres, in response to a question about the continuing closure of the Ledbury Youth Centre, Councillor Stockton advised that the youth centre had experience great difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff.  He said that investigations were underway into possible dual-use of the facility.  Councillor D.W. Rule, Cabinet Member (Education) advised that "Mucky Pups" was providing a service for the early years category.

In relation to Item 8.1(ii) - Building Schools for the Future - Councillor Rule advised that all Councillors would be kept fully informed of proposals to improve or extend schools in their local area.  He confirmed that the bid to be included at an early phase of the national programme had been submitted and that a decision should be announced in December 2003.  For the benefit of the pupils from Haywood High School attending the meeting, the Leader advised that it was proposed that 90% of their school would be demolished and rebuilt if such proposals were to be approved.

In relation to Item 9.1(i) - Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Part 1 (Strategy) - Councillor P.J. Edwards, Cabinet Member (Environment) was congratulated on the consultations with local members at which a broad consensus view was agreed to be taken forward to the next stage in the process.  However, some Councillors who represented wards within the City expressed disappointment that none of the Hereford Councillors representing the City were included in the UDP Group.

In relation to Item 10.1(ii) - Car Parking Strategy and Charges - Councillor T.M. James moved the following motion:

"That this Council, bearing in mind that it represents one of the counties with the lowest household income in England, wishes it to be made clear to the Cabinet that its proposal to increase car parking charges by a figure many times the rate of inflation and in some cases as much as 100% and do so without any meaningful consultation with the communities affected, is unacceptable.

It therefore instructs that the Cabinet and the relevant Cabinet Member withdraw this proposed scheme until full meaningful consultation has taken place with the relevant parish, town and city councils, trade organisations and general public.

It further wishes to make it clear that any increase above the current annual rate of inflation is totally unacceptable to this Council.  It further instructs that a working party be established representing all affected groups to discuss any changes to the current scheme and make recommendations."

He expressed the view that this should not be a matter for the Executive.  It was a policy matter which should be decided by the whole Council.  He said he was concerned at the way in which the Cabinet Member (Highways and Transportation) had dealt with the consultation meeting at which the schedule of charges had been circulated to Members.  He said there had been limited consultation with parishes and communities, and that the charges would be, in effect, a stealth tax.  He was concerned that there was a lack of information from officers who could not say whether the charges would cover the costs of collection.  He said there was a need for an all-party body to consult with communities and make recommendations which would be fair to the whole County.  He said that people were tired of increases to charges that were way above the rate of inflation.

Councillor Chappell seconded the motion.

Several Members spoke in favour of the motion, making the following points:

Leominster - it would be wise to defer changes in Leominster for 12 months to assess the impact of various retail factors including

• the construction of a new DIY superstore which would have around 100 free car parking spaces;
• restrictions to access to town centre caused by work on the Industrial Estate Access Road;
• transfer of Council staff from Leominster to Hereford;
• current planning application for 40% increase in out-of-town supermarket space;
• general deprivation factors. 
• Leominster Town Council had commissioned a report which would be ready before Christmas. 
• Equity of charges did not mean equality - different towns had different needs.

Hereford City 

• Money raised from parking in the City should be used in the city, e.g to remove graffiti. 
• Hospital car parks are inadequate and increasing charges would put members of staff at risk. 
• Parts of Merton Meadow car park are often completely empty - spaces here should be free to key workers. 
• Additional income expected from a 12% increase in charges.
• A Multi-storey car park is required in the vicinity of the bus station. 
• Belmont has more unemployment than any other part of the City.
• A cross-party group should be set up and extra funding made available for rural transport.

Environment Scrutiny Committee  

• The point was made that the all-party Scrutiny Committee had unanimously rejected the increased charges and referred the decision back to Cabinet.  Further consideration should be given to the proposals before they were implemented because, once imposed, they would not be reversed.  Review of charges should take place at the end of the administration's term of office.
• More consultation was needed.

Those opposed to the motion argued:

• The Council had made a pledge to be equitable in provision of services across the County in particular on issues such as parking and cemeteries;
• the position on free parking was obviously unfair;
• neighbouring authorities charge much more for their parking;
• the car parking strategy was approved and supported by the previous administration.

The Cabinet Member (Highways and Transportation) reminded Council that it had approved the car parking strategy as part of the Local Transport Plan and that a review of charges had not been undertaken for two and a half years.  He also said that Cabinet had attempted to achieve equity and had agreed to review the strategy.

The Leader said that the decision to raise charges was always a difficult one, as neither the County nor the Council was wealthy.  He reminded Council of the overall package of proposed changes which included concessions for Christmas.  He said that increases had to be practical in terms of coinage and that fees collected from car parking charges helped offset costs for other services.  He said that the Forward Plan had contained details of the proposed changes but that had been largely ignored. 

Councillor James took issue with the Leader's comments.  He said that the strategy did not imply authority to raise charges nor to extend parking charges in Leominster, Ledbury and Kington.  He said that if the Council went ahead with imposing such charges it would be sending a clear signal to market towns, businesses and the people of Herefordshire that it did not care about their views.

A named vote was held with the following result

For (18) - Councillors Mrs. Andrews, Ashton, Mrs. Bew, Bowen, Chappell, Mrs. Daniels, Dauncey, Mrs. Davis, Fleet, James, Mrs. Lloyd-Hayes, Newman, Preece, J.P. Thomas, W.J.S. Thomas, Ms Toon, Walling and A.L. Williams.

Against (36) - Councillors Mrs. Barnett, Bramer, Davies, G.W. Davis, J.W. Edwards, P.J. Edwards, Mrs. French, Goodwin, Mrs. Gray, Grumbley, Guthrie, Harling, Hope, B. Hunt, T.W. Hunt, G.V. Hyde, Mrs. Hyde, Brig. Jones, Mrs. Lincoln, Lucas, Manning, Matthews, Mayson, Mills, Mrs. Pemberton, Phillips, Ms Powell, Mrs. Robertson, Rule, Stockton, Stone, Taylor, Turpin, Wilcox, J.B. Williams, Wilson.

Councillor R.B.A. Burke abstained.

The motion was therefore declared lost.

In relation to Item 11.1(i) - Access to Services in Kington and Surrounding Areas: Wesleyan Chapel - Councillor James congratulated Councillor Mrs. French, Cabinet Member (Human Resources and Corporate Support Services) on holding a successful open public meeting.

In relation to Item 11.1(ii) - Implementing Electronic Government (IEG) Statement - in response to a query about the amount of funding likely to be awarded next year, Councillor Mrs. French advised that the statement had been submitted to central government in October and the award of funding was in their hands.  She stated that the Budget Panel would be looking at how much would be needed to bring the Council's IT to a comparable standard with other authorities.  Councillor Mrs. Barnett, Cabinet Member (Social Care and Strategic Housing) confirmed that officers were investigating the introduction of a system of single assessment.  Councillor Mrs. French noted a request to encourage parish councils to access e-government.

In relation to Item 13.1(v) - TUPE Considerations in Relation to the Proposed Transfer of Homes for Older People to Shaw -Councillor Chappell urged the Leader to reconsider the Cabinet decision not to require Shaw Homes to employ new joiners, post-transfer on the same terms and conditions as existing staff.  Councillor Mrs. Barnett said that negotiations were continuing with Shaw but that the Council could not dictate how they should treat new staff.  It could, however, protect existing staff, and that was what it had done.  She advised Council that, if negotiations with Shaw were to fail, the Council would be failing the most vulnerable people in the County and she would not wish to be involved in that.  Councillor Chappell stated that a divided workforce would not be a happy workforce.  He quoted the recent transfer of staff at the Hospital as an example.  He also praised Jarvis for adopting TUPE Gold and again urged the Cabinet Member to require Shaw to comply.

The Council adjourned at 12.20 p.m. and reconvened at 12.25 p.m. to allow the staff and school pupils in attendance to withdraw.

In relation to Item 13.2(i) - Regional Housing Strategy for the West Midlands and Regional Housing Board Allocations Strategy - In response to a question, Councillor Mrs. Barnett advised that there were 5,000 homeless families in Herefordshire and that there was an average of 19 applications for each house.

In relation to Item 13.2(ii) - Annual Review of Performance in 2002-03 Herefordshire Council Social Services - In response to a query Councillor Mrs. Barnett advised that a date had not yet been set to consider the business case for Older People's Homes.  The Leader advised that there would be a full Member briefing.

RESOLVED:   That the report of the meetings of Cabinet held on 21st August, 4th and 25th September and 9th and 23rd October, 2003 be received.