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 questions had been received in time to be included in the agenda.  The questions and responses are set out below:

 

Question from Mr M Hubbard, Hereford in a personal capacity:

 

"As a riparian owner on the Wye and keen to maintain the charter rights of the citizens of Hereford, enabling free use of the river for leisure & fishing purposes, can I be assured that those rights, that have been protected by the city for several hundred years and are now held in stewardship by the Herefordshire Council, are still being protected and how?"

 

Councillor D.B. Wilcox, Cabinet Member (Highways and Transportation) replied that many matters concerning the River Wye, including those relating to ecology, wildlife, pollution and navigation are regulated by the Environment Agency.  The Council has no power to interfere with the private riparian rights of persons who own land adjoining the rivers within the County.  The Council is engaged in litigation regarding various claims to historic fishing rights within the City of Hereford.  That litigation is still ongoing and in consequence no final resolution of the competing claims has yet been achieved.

 

Question from Mr M Hubbard, Hereford in his role as Chairperson of the Friends of Castle Green:

 

"Please would Herefordshire Council provide me with a breakdown of the total costs of maintaining & repairing the city parks known as Castle Green, Redcliffe Gardens and Cantilupe Gardens, including Castle Pool, over the past year.  Please would Herefordshire Council also provide a breakdown of projected long-term spending on capital projects for the same areas."

 

Councillor R.V. Stockton, Cabinet Member (Community Services) stated that the costs of maintaining the areas known as Castle Green, Redcliffe Gardens and Cantilupe Gardens in respect of routine grounds maintenance activity for the financial year 2005/6 were in the region of £40,486.  This figure did not include any emergency work which was unlikely to exceed £5,000.  He advised that there was no specific allocation for the maintenance of the Castle Pool area.

 

He also advised that there was no ongoing capital allocation for these sites.  However, in recent years there had been a one-off allocation of £110,000 for the cleansing and de-silting of the Castle Pool and in addition there had also been a one-off sum of £34,000 allocated for the renovation of the Mill Street steps leading to the Castle Green.  He said that there were no future items of capital expenditure identified for these areas at this time.

 

Questions from Mr R Hattersley, Hereford

 

City Assets

"There has been rumour and counter rumour locally about the selling off of key council property in the City of Hereford. For the benefit of the City residents and taxpayers who own these properties collectively, can the Council please confirm : -

 

Which properties, if any, have already been sold?

Which properties are already "on the market"?

Which properties are still being discussed?

Which properties can the Council guarantee will not be considered for sale?

 

What plans do the Council have for consulting the residents of the City of Hereford before any such sales of their property proceed?

 

Can the Council please confirm precisely what any monies raised through such sales will be spent on?

 

Can the Council please confirm whether it is their intention to begin proceeding with such sales before or after the next local elections in May 2007?"

 

Councillor R.M. Wilson, Cabinet Member (Resources) said that the question asked by Mr. Hattersley was based on a misunderstanding about the basis on which property is held by the Council.  Herefordshire Council was formed in 1997 and became operational from 1st April, 1998.  It inherited property from the four outgoing District Councils and from the outgoing Hereford and Worcester County Council.  Statutory provision was made for the transfer of that property.  As at 1st April, 1998, the whole of the Council’s property portfolio would have consisted of property inherited from the former Councils.  The Council holds that property for the benefit of the whole of its area.

 

In relation to the specific questions asked, he said that the questions were based on the incorrect premise that property was held for the specific benefit of residents of the City.  As no such properties were held on that basis, it would only be possible to respond by providing, a complete list of all the properties that have been sold by the Council since 1st April, 1998. 

 

However, he did advise that the only recent sales within the City have been those of numbers 9 - 15 and 17 St. Owen Street.

 

Within the City Council’s area, 47 Gaol Street and the Burcott Road Depot are currently “on the market”.

 

He said it was not possible to respond accurately to the question about what properties are still being discussed, because the Council’s Asset Management Plan requires it to keep the whole of its property portfolio under constant review.

 

With regard to the sale of properties in the  future he advised that the Council was not legally able to give a guarantee of the kind that was sought.  It is a well-established principle of administrative law that no Council can fetter the discretion of its successor.  Any guarantee this administration sought to give could therefore only be effective until the next elections in May 2007.  However, he added that it was very unlikely that this administration would sell iconic public buildings such as the Old House in High Town or the Shire Hall

 

He said that the Council did not consult on the disposal of individual properties and nor would it seem appropriate to do so.  The Council will, however, consult on its Medium Term Financial Strategy, which sets out the principles within which the Council will finance its revenue and capital requirements. The Council also has procedures in place to ensure that strategic partners, service providers and service users or their representatives are consulted appropriately prior to a decision to dispose of an asset being undertaken.

 

The capital receipt income generated from the sale of assets is applied in accordance with the Council’s corporate priorities.  In the case of the Town Hall, should the City Council proceed with its request to purchase the building, the capital receipt would be used to part pay for the alternative accommodation that would be needed for Herefordshire Council staff currently located in that building.

 

Finally, he advised that a number of property related issues would be taken into account in determining when surplus assets were brought to the market.  Clearly, the Council would need to have alternative accommodation available and consideration of the prevailing property market conditions would also be pertinent.  Realistically, however, the Council would not be in a position to negotiate alternative accommodation and complete the sale of additional property prior to May, 2007.  He felt it was highly likely that other properties across the County would be offered for sale before the elections in May 2007, in line with the Council’s current accommodation strategy.

 

Question from Mr Hattersley

 

Rotherwas Access Road

 

"Given that the Rotherwas Access Road has been turned down repeatedly as "poor value for money", can the Council confirm that it is still their intention to pursue its construction?

 

If so, can the Council give some indication as to what sources of funding they will be accessing for the road, given that government sources appear inaccessible?

 

Recent research by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and the Countryside Agency* found that new roads in Newbury, Eastbourne and Blackburn generated unexpectedly high levels of traffic growth both on the new roads themselves and in town centres.  Does the Council believe that a Rotherwas Access Road and indeed a bypass would have solved any of Hereford's traffic problems within 10 years of their construction, and, if so, will they bring forward the evidence on which they are making such claims."

 

Councillor D.B. Wilcox, Cabinet Member (Highways and Transportation) replied thatthe Council remained committed to delivering the Rotherwas Access Road.  He said that the new road was essential to overcoming the transport problems of the area and ensuring the Rotherwas Industrial Estate maintained its status as the major home of Herefordshire’s businesses.  The recent announcement regarding funding from the Department for Transport related to their assessment of the scheme against the Department’s scheme appraisal criteria, which did not fully recognise the wider benefits of the scheme to Herefordshire.   The Council considered that the road does represent value for money and would make a major contribution to the local economy and economic development within Herefordshire.  He said that the scheme had been supported by the Regional Development Agency, Advantage West Midlands.  The West Midlands Regional Assembly had identified the scheme as making a major contribution to regional objectives and concluded that it should be a priority for investment.

 

As a matter of urgency, the Council was considering all potential sources of funding.

 

The Council is aware of the recent report produced by Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and the Countryside Agency, entitled “Beyond Transport Infrastructure” and other reports regarding research into the generation of traffic.

 

Government guidance makes clear that it is important for new road schemes to be considered as part of an integrated transport strategy.  The Council identified the need for the Rotherwas Access Road following an integrated transport study that focused on solutions to the transport problems of the estate.  This study recommended an integrated package of measures to address access to the estate by all modes of transport.  Through the Local Transport Plan, the Council has already implemented improvements for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport and continues to support a successful Travel Plan for the Estate to encourage the use of alternative modes and help reduce congestion.  The provision of a new Access Road to the estate would complete this package and address the problems of access to the estate by HGVs and allow further measures on Holme Lacy Road to reduce the environmental impact of traffic on the area.

 

The Council’s second Local Transport Plan published in March 2006, highlights the need for an Outer Distributor Road in the longer term, as part of the integrated transport strategy for addressing the transport problems of the city.  This strategy was developed following a comprehensive local multi-modal study.  This was completed in 2003 and carried out in partnership with the Government Office for the West Midlands, Advantage West Midlands, the Highways Agency, the Chamber of Commerce and the West Midlands Sustainability Forum.   Therefore, had such a road been built earlier then this would have been of great benefit to Hereford.

 

These comments were made without addressing the significant additional benefits that an Access Road would achieve in respect of economic regeneration and employment prospects for the area.

 

Question from Mr R Gill, Cradley

 

"The Planning Inspector in paragraph 9.56/1 of his report on the draft UDP chooses to back the views of a developer against the wishes of many objectors, many villagers and the Parish Council, in denying HBA9 (Open Space) status to the field opposite St Katherine’s in Cradley.  Whilst his expert knowledge of the requirements of HBA9 status is not being questioned, his understanding of the application to this particular field is limited compared to the knowledge of the locals.  He does however admit that the road alongside is “at this point still like country lane” recognising a weakness in his case.  His view that the field is “contributing little to the appreciation of the settlement or the neighbourhood” is strongly disputed by the villagers, who have a much better acquaintance with the locality and who could demonstrate his error in court.

 

It might be reasonably inferred that the recommendation of Council officials to accept his view and reverse the previous decision of the Council is influenced by fear of the legal costs of any future dispute with the developer. Would the Council please give some indication of the legal costs which they would incur in defending a decision to deny HBA9 status were this decision to be challenged in the courts by a group of concerned villagers in Cradley and would the Council please opine whether they consider that it is an appropriate use of council tax payers’ money to attempt to defeat the wishes of the community?

 

A recitation of an answer prepared by council officials will be informative, but the views of councillors are also solicited."

 

Councillor P.J. Edwards, Cabinet Member (Environment) advised that the Inspector’s recommendation on this land has been reached on the basis of access to all relevant material, including the community views expressed through the Village Design Statement and the Parish Plan, which were designated as Inquiry Core Documents.  On this basis, and with the benefit of a site visit, the Inspector concluded that the land did not qualify for protection under the policy; and recommended accordingly.

 

This recommendation and the Inspector’s reasoning has been carefully considered. The conclusion that has been reached by the UDP Working Group of members and by Cabinet, taking full account of the representations submitted by the local member on behalf of the local community, was that the Inspector’s recommendation should be accepted.

 

This conclusion had been reached on the planning merits of the case.  Legal costs are not relevant to the planning merits and no meaningful indication can be given as this would depend on the nature of any action.  

 

 

Question from Mr David Creed-Newton, Chairman of Cradley Parish Council,

"Would the Council care to comment on an apparent denial of the democratic process?

 

Community involvement in planning accords with people’s right to participate in decisions that affect their lives. It is an important part of the trend towards democratisation of all aspects of society.” – Community Planning Website, funded by the Department for Communities and Local Government

 

The villagers of Cradley have expressed their view that the plot opposite St Katherine’s be protected as an open space.  They voted five to one in favour of this in a systematic consultation process (Planning for Real ®). The village has, in partnership with Herefordshire Forward Planning, developed a Village Design Statement and a Parish Plan promoting this.  Cradley Parish Council, representing the villages of Cradley and Storridge, has laboured hard to keep this as an open space.  Herefordshire Council had commendably recognised the importance of this matter in its last redraft of the Unitary Development Plan.  Yet all this is to be ignored in the face of the opinion of one unelected official (however distinguished), visiting from outside the area if the Council reverses its position and accepts the Inspector’s recommendation 9.56/1.

 

Is there any point in seeking the opinions of the electorate, of producing Parish Plans and Design Statements, of voting for councillors, of turning up to meetings of the Council, or would the Council advise voters and parishioners not to bother?"

 

Councillor P.J. Edwards, Cabinet Member (Environment) stated that the future use of the land referred to has been fully assessed and discussed through the process of preparing the Unitary Development Plan. 

 

In doing so, regard had been had to community views that the land should be protected.  Indeed the Council had sought to achieve such protection through designation under a policy of the Plan – HBA9.  This designation had been objected to and therefore fell to be considered at the Public Inquiry.

 

The independent assessment by the Inspector was part of the normal process of scrutinising the Plan.  In this case, the Inspector considered the specific matter of whether the site qualified for protection under the policy.  As part of that process, all objectors had the opportunity to prepare and submit evidence to the Inquiry.    The Inspector had access to all relevant material, including the community views expressed through the Village Design Statement and the Parish Plan, which were designated as Inquiry Core Documents.  On this basis, and with the benefit of a site visit, he concluded that the land did not qualify for protection under the policy; and recommended accordingly.  

 

The Council's Unitary Development Plan Working Group, after careful consideration,  accepted the Inspector's recommendation.  This was not, in itself, a denial of the democratic process.  The recommendation was soundly based and should be accepted on planning merits.