To receive a report from the leader on the activities of the executive (cabinet) since the meeting of Council on 6 March 2020.

Council received and noted the Leader’s report on the activities of the Cabinet since the meeting of Council on 6 March 2020 as contained in the supplement published on 16 July containing a corrected version of the report. The Leader introduced his report and provided a correction to paragraph 13 to include mention of Staffordshire as a member of the Shire Leaders. The Leader also referred to the announcement from government that the Council would receive an extra £1.5million to assist in the response to coronavirus.

The Leader received the following questions:

·         If the capital programme was amended to release money for flooding repairs can you confirm that no projects to benefit rural areas would be cut? It was hoped that more money would be forthcoming from government to fund the flooding repairs, if cuts to the capital programme were required this would be a decision of the full Council. It was hoped that any cuts would not affect the investment identified for market towns.

·         The intervention of the MP for North Herefordshire in efforts to secure funding from government for flooding repairs was welcome but was there concern that only minor influence had been brought to bear. It was hoped that the MP retained influence with the government. The Leader regularly wrote to ministers in the government and copied his correspondence to the MP.

·         It was queried why there was no mention of the £7.6 million funding from the Department of Transport (DfT) for highways bringing total grant funding up to £20 million. The Leader explained that this funding was part of the capital programme and was committed to potholes although its purpose had been updated by government to include mention of recovery from flooding. The administration was intent on using the whole fund for potholes and accessing other capital funding to pay for repairs to flooding damage; this would be a collective decision of the Council. 

·         The revenue implications of the purchase of the Maylords Centre and the Hillside centre were queried. It was confirmed that the Maylords Centre had a positive cash flow and the reopening of the Hillside centre was undertaken as an emergency measure in response to the flooding of a care home in the South of the county.

The meeting was adjourned at 12.50 p.m. due to technical problems. The meeting was reconvened at 1.20 p.m.

·         The community working arrangements with partners during the coronavirus was very valuable and it was asked whether the council could commit to retain the links established. It was important to not lose the links and Talk Community could work with local communities to sustain the arrangements established.

·         The non-profit principle behind the acquisition of the Maylords Centre was queried. It was explained that there was not a profit incentive attached to the purchase of the centre which allowed the council to explore options with the local community to realise its social value.

·         As the existing freeholder of the site the purchase of the Maylords Centre concerned the acquisition of 145,000 sq ft of retail space only. The purchase provided the Council with control over the whole site to develop its use in the future.  

·         The delay to the implementation of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was raised and an update requested. An update was contained in the papers for the meeting which explained that the core strategy review would address the potential adoption of CIL but this had been delayed by the pandemic.

·         The timescale for the nutrient management plan for the Lugg and Wye catchment was queried. A decision was currently being prepared to invest £2 million on the integrated wetlands project. Following the commencement of the work on the wetlands a determination would need to be made as to whether planning permissions in the catchment could begin to be granted. Work was being undertaken with Powys County Council where the rivers rose and with the local MPs.

·         It was queried what the drainage team would do to address a complex drainage issue on the C1125. The cabinet member infrastructure and transport explained that the capacity in the drainage team had been reduced due to the reduction in central government funding. The £7.6 million funding from the DfT was intended to resolve such highways issues and clarification from government over the use of the funding for flooding repairs was being sought. The cabinet member would contact the member to discuss.

·         The inclusion of waste management plans in agricultural based planning applications was raised and a public awareness raising exercise to inform the public of their responsibility to reduce water pollution. The administration was keen to raise the profile of such issues and would look to consider in the integrated wetlands decision.

·         The work of practitioners with children during the lockdown was raised. Tribute was paid to teachers and officers who worked with children and the manner in which they had adapted to circumstances under the lockdown and the use of new ways of working.

·         The influence the acquisition of the Maylord centre could exert over the regeneration of Hereford was raised and the cultural and community opportunities it presented. The centre could be converted for social, cultural use or commerce. Ownership of the site meant that there might be the opportunity for the development through the Towns Fund if the Board managing the fund allocated investment to the site. The cabinet member commissioning, procurement and assets explained that no concerns regarding the purchase had been raised with the portfolio holder, the acquisition had not been called in and the decision had concerned the acquisition of the leasehold of the site. The social value of the site included the role it could play in the health and wellbeing of Herefordshire residents, promoting tourism, cultural initiatives and providing retail space for small business.

·         Will the council consider other, similar opportunities to the purchase of the Maylords centre as they become available in Hereford city centre and would they be ‘not for profit’? The council was not seeking to become a property company particularly as the capital budget was stretched but there may be merit in the purchase of other individual sites. The term ‘not for profit’ implied a charitable arrangement; the Maylord centre was commercially viable but the council had placed an emphasis on the social value of the site.