Decisions

The Senior Licensing and Enforcement Officer drew Members’ attention to the results of the consultation, which took place between 26 August 2019 and 19 September 2019, to limit the number of Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licences.  Approximately 250 consultation letters were sent and a total of three responses were received.  It was noted that the first response agreed with the proposal and further suggested that the limit of licences issued should be set between 180-190, however a reason for this was not provided.  The second response noted that it was too little too late and the third response agreed with the proposal and accounted for the views of 9 licenced drivers.

Councillor D Andrews acknowledged that the lack of response suggested that those in the trade were not unduly worried about the proposed limit.

Councillor M McMullen sought and was provided with clarification that the limit would not affect current licence holders. The number of licences would diminish through natural wastage and polices being applied flexibly.  New applications could still be submitted with each application considered in its own merits.  Electric vehicles with disabled access could receive dispensation.

Councillor M Stevenson commented on the effects of vehicles from other areas operating in Hertford, as mentioned in the first consultation response.  It was advised that Licensing Officers actively patrolled local areas to enforce regulations.

In response to a query from Councillor M Goldspink, it was noted that the limit would be monitored by Licencing Officers and could be reviewed in the future if required. 

It was moved by Councillor M McMullen and seconded by Councillor S Reed that the Hackney Carriage trade be limited to 200 with a flexible approach being taken in terms of the application of policy in relation to wheelchair accessible vehicles and electric vehicles.  The overall number would be reduced by natural wastage and this approach should be adopted.  After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared carried.

RESOLVED – that (A) the proposed limit of 200 Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licences was the correct level;

(B) recommend to Council that a limit be imposed on the number of Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licences that were issued, including the level of that limit from 1^st January 2020.

Council considered a report submitted by the Democratic Services Manager on allocation of Committee seats to the Substitute Members of the Green and Labour Groups.  The review of political balance had taken place upon notification of the change of these two Groups before the last Council meeting.

Councillor B Crystall proposed, and Councillor C Redfern seconded, a motion to support the recommendation in the report.  The motion being put to the meeting, and a vote taken, it was declared CARRIED. 

RESOLVED - to (A) approve the allocation of the number of Substitute Members to the Labour and Green Groups on the Committees referred to in the report; and

(B) note that the Members of the Labour and Green Groups, as nominated by their respective Group Leaders be Substitute Members for such Committees.

Council considered the recommendation from the Executive on the Masterplanning Framework for the SAWB4 site, land to the North of Sawbridgeworth. 

Councillor L Haysey moved, and Councillor J Goodeve seconded, a motion that the recommendations, as now detailed, be approved.  After being put to the meeting, and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – that the land to the North of Sawbridgeworth Masterplanning Framework for the strategic allocation known as SAWB4, be agreed as a material consideration for Development Management purposes.

Council considered the recommendation from the Executive on a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the emerging Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), and seeking Members’ agreement to publish the draft Affordable Housing SPD for public consultation.

Councillor L Haysey proposed, and Councillor T Page seconded, a motion that the recommendations as detailed in the report be approved.  After being put to the meeting, and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED - that (A) in accordance with the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 it has been determined that a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the emerging Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is not required as it is unlikely to have significant environmental effects; and

(B) the draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), be agreed and published for a period of public consultation.

Council considered the recommendation from the Executive on East Herts District Plan, in respect of the retail frontages, design and signage SPD.

Councillor L Haysey proposed, and Councillor A Huggins seconded, a motion to support the recommendations detailed in the reports. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED - that (A) the responses of the consultation be noted and the officer responses and proposed changes to the Retail Frontages, Design & Signage Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) be supported;

(B) The Retail Frontages, Design & Signage Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), as detailed at Essential Reference Paper ‘B’ to this report, be approved for adoption; and

(C) In accordance with the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 it has been determined that a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the emerging Retail Frontages, Design & Signage Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is not required as it is unlikely to have significant environmental effects.

Councillor Buckmaster submitted a report on the progress of the theatre expansion work and business plan for the Hertford Theatre Growth and Legacy Scheme.  The report requested additional funding of £6.4mn for the delivery of the scheme. 

Councillor Buckmaster drew Members’ attention to the detailed explanation for the additional funding as set out in the report, which included for structural reasons replacing the existing building.  Additional funding of £6.4m was sought.  Councillor Buckmaster explained that following analysis of the original costs and additional information arising from a more comprehensive understanding of the design and build requirements, the existing building structure and external market information and influences, a number of revised cost requirements, over and above those captured in the £13.5mn figure for the original design, had been identified.  He said whilst the additional costs of £6.4m were a significant increase on the agreed funding, the business case demonstrated a strong return on investment.  On completion, Hertford Theatre would deliver an operational result of £1,244,372m per year, and after support service costs and the increased capital charges, the Theatre would operate with a surplus and would bring a contribution to the Council of + £110,201 per year.

Councillor Buckmaster proposed recommendation (A) in the report, and subject to the consent of his seconder, and the consent of the meeting, said he now proposed an additional recommendation (B), “to provide the range of good value and free activities for vulnerable and hard to reach audiences, and ensures a pricing structure that was reflective of the new and expanded offer and endeavoured to keep price increases to a minimum”. 

Councillor G Williamson gave his consent to the alteration of the motion to support the recommendation, as seconder.

The Chairman asked for the meeting to signify consent to the alteration, which was given.

Councillor Redfern asked a question regarding the ability to use royalties.

Rhys Thomas said amended royalty rights were measured against the capacity of the auditorium. 

Councillor S Bell sought an explanation regarding the alteration of the motion. 

The Democratic Services Manager said the Council's standing orders provided that a Member could alter the wording of his or her motion with the consent of the seconder and the consent of the meeting. 

Councillor G Williamson, as seconder, said he supported this project. 

Councillor A Curtis said Members should bear in mind the cultural enhancement the project would bring. 

Councillor S Bell proposed an amendment to the recommendation.   She said this project sought to provide a valuable community asset, and this development should have the ethos of a project that was delivered ultimately to benefit the residents of Hertford and the surrounding area.  In order to ensure the Council recognised the importance of amateur and not for profit groups within the community and to ensure that the Theatre remained affordable and accessible to those groups following its refurbishment, she proposed that the motion be amended to add the following wording as recommendation (B):  “The higher rates for all amateur and not for profit groups who wish to use the Theatre will be capped at the current rate and will only increase in line with inflation”. 

Councillor J Dumont seconded the amendment. 

Councillor J Wyllie sought clarification of the intention regarding whether the rates would or would not be capped. 

Councillor Bell said she proposed the only increase would be that caused by inflation. 

Councillor Buckmaster said his recommendation took account of the current ethos, and the amateur dramatic groups were thriving with the help of the Theatre.  He was content that his additional recommendation addressed this point, and did not consider the amendment now proposed added any merit.

Councillor M Goldspink said whilst she welcomed the additional recommendation put forward by Councillor Buckmaster, it was not strong enough.  All Members wanted to provide a good theatre for Hertford, but this was a community project and it should be available for community groups and amateur performers.   

Rhys Thomas said community groups were prioritised and the organisations would be able to book space in the auditorium, whilst smaller performances could take place in the studio theatre. 

Members debated the amendment at length. 

Councillor J Dumont as seconder said he supported the comments made by Councillor M Goldspink although he noted protection would be given to smaller groups. 

Councillor M Brady questioned how the Council would repay the debt, as she was concerned this debt would impact on other essential services.

Councillor Buckmaster said the report set out a good business model and he was confident it would be sustainable.  The Council had a low interest rate over that period. 

Councillor C Redfern expressed concerns and questioned why there seemed to have been no consultation on this or the original plan. 

Councillor Buckmaster reminded all that the debate should focus on the proposed amendment. 

Members continued to debate the motion and issues referred to in the report.  The Chairman reminded all Members to speak to the amendment currently under debate. 

In response to a question regarding the wording of the amendment, Councillor Bell said she was content that the wording “would be capped at the current rate” would be deleted. 

Councillor E Buckmaster, opposing the amendment, said it was necessary to be adaptable and flexible. 

The Chairman read out the amendment, as proposed by Councillor S Bell and seconded by Councillor J Dumont, as follows: “The hire rates for all amateur and not for profit groups who wish to use the Theatre would only rise in line with inflation.”

A vote being taken, the amendment was declared LOST. 

Members continued to debate the substantive motion.  Councillor C Redfern said many of the residents of Hertford felt they were not consulted.  She had been unable to attend the presentation on 8 October, and the information at that meeting had been confidential until publication of the agenda.  She asked where parking for the Theatre would be sited, and questioned why cinema screens needed to be part of the Theatre.  She proposed that the request for additional funding be delayed until the December Council meeting.

Councillor M Brady seconded the amendment.

Members debated the matter further, raising aspects such as the forecast net contribution of £110k for the proposals, and the intention that the facilities were not only for Hertford, but for residents across the District. 

Further points were raised, including what assurances could be given that the figures were correct; what headroom was factored in for any further costs increases and whether instead of aiming to make a profit, the approach should be to provide subsidies. 

Councillor E Buckmaster responded to the various points made.  He said consultation had taken place in the public domain for over a year; the Council was exploring options for parking and public transport; this was a discrete project and the money could not necessarily be allocated to other purposes.  A new theatre would provide for the residents provided for under the District Plan.  The project was good value.  He provided assurance as to the process for costing which was driven by three factors, cost, inflation and the previous feasibility study, which did not include inflation.  A robust approach had been taken and inflation had now been built into the calculations through until completion.  Councillor Buckmaster summarised further factors taken into account regarding the evolution of the brief. 

Councillor L Haysey said, in further response to points which had been made, that she had been an Executive Member at the time the Theatre had been built, and the Council had transformed Castle Hall into the Theatre.  The new Theatre had been accepted as an asset, despite at the time similar doubts and questions having been raised.  The use of the space which was now proposed had been fully explained.  Without investing in the Theatre as a legacy project, it would go downhill, and this was an opportunity to recreate a regional centre for excellence.

The amendment to defer the request for additional funding as proposed by Councillor C Redfern and seconded by Councillor M Brady being put to the meeting, and a vote taken, the amendment was declared LOST. 

Councillor E Buckmaster spoke to the substantive motion, which he then proposed.  The motion being put the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED. 

RESOLVED that (A) the additional funding of £6.4m be approved for the delivery of the Hertford Theatre Growth and Legacy scheme (subject to planning approval); and

(B) The Hertford Theatre continue to provide the range of good value and free activities for vulnerable and hard to reach audiences and ensure the pricing structure that is reflective of the new and expanded offer and endeavours to keep price increases to a minimum.

Council considered the recommendation from the Executive on the Masterplanning Framework for the WARE2 land North and East of Ware. 

Councillor L Haysey proposed, and Councillor J Goodeve seconded, a motion that the recommendation be approved.  After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED - that the Land North and East of Ware Masterplanning Framework for the strategic allocation known as WARE2 Land North and East of Ware, be agreed as a material consideration for Development Management purposes.

To enable Executive Members to consider the Masterplanning Framework for the HERT4 North of Hertford (Sacombe Road, Bengeo) site.

Council considered the recommendation from the Executive on the Masterplanning Framework for the HERT4 North of Hertford (Sacombe Road, Bengeo) site.  She moved, and Councillor G Goodeve seconded, a motion that the recommendations, as now detailed in the report submitted, be approved.

After being put to the meeting, and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

Council considered the recommendation from the Executive on a report outlining the results of the public consultation on the draft revised Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and seeking Members’ agreement to adopt a revised document.

Councillor L Haysey proposed, and Councillor A Ward-Booth seconded, a motion to support the recommendations detailed in the report. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED - that (A) the responses of the consultation be noted and the officer responses and proposed changes to the draft revised Statement of Community Involvement be supported; and

(B) The East Herts Statement of Community Involvement 2019, as detailed, be approved for adoption.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services submitted a report seeking approval for the revisions to the current polling districts places and stations within the District. 

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services drew Members’ attention to a slight amendment regarding a prefix to the code for Buntingford.  She highlighted the main elements of the report, which aimed to “future proof” the register of electors. 

Councillor D Snowden proposed a motion to support the recommendations as set out in the report.  Councillor D Andrews seconded the motion. 

In response to a question by Councillor D Snowden, the Electoral Services Officer explained the schedules appended to the report were summaries of the new polling scheme.  The new prefixes would be substituted for the former prefixes.  The changes would take effect when the register was published, due to be on 1 December. 

In reply to a question from Councillor D Andrews, the Electoral Services Officer said that a typographical error regarding the polling place for Polling District reference JG in the ward of Hertford Rural South would be corrected.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services confirmed that this correction could be delegated to the Electoral Registration Officer. 

RESOLVED – (A) the revised scheme of polling districts, places and stations as set out in Essential Reference Paper ‘B’ be approved, and 

(B)the ward register number changes as set out in Essential Reference Paper ‘C’, be approved

(C)the Electoral Registration Officer be authorised to effect minor alterations to the scheme.

Council received a report submitted by Councillor D Andrews as Chairman of the Licensing Committee, detailing recommendations from the Committee to Council on the draft Taxi Licensing Suitability policy. 

Councillor D Andrews said the Council was under a statutory obligation to ensure public safety, and took this duty seriously.  He commended the draft policy, and proposed a motion that the recommendations be approved.  Councillor P Boylan seconded the motion. 

After being put to the meeting, and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED. 

RESOLVED to approve the adoption of the revised Taxi Licensing Suitability Policy, as detailed in the report, to take effect from 1 November 2019.

Council considered the recommendation from the Executive on the Anstey Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan following public consultation.

Councillor L Haysey proposed, and Councillor D Andrews seconded, a motion to support the recommendations detailed in the report. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED - that (A) the responses to the public consultation be noted and the Officer responses and proposed changes to the Anstey Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan be supported;

(B) the Head of Planning and Building Control, in

consultation with the Executive Member for

Planning and Growth, be authorised to make any

further minor and consequential changes to the

document which may be necessary; and

(C) the Anstey Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan be adopted.

Council considered the recommendation from the Executive on the current local Council Tax Support Scheme at East Herts and whether any changes to the scheme should be considered for 2020/21. 

Councillor L Haysey proposed, and Councillor G Cutting seconded, a motion to support the recommendations as detailed in the report. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED - that there be no changes to the scheme design for East Herts local Council Tax Support scheme for 2020/21.

Members received a report asking the Committee to consider a potential acquisition.  The Corporate Property Services Manager said the property detailed in the report had been identified and brought to the Financial Sustainability Board in 2018, and was then presented as an option for purchase at the meeting of the Committee on 22 August.  At that meeting the Committee had agreed to explore a possible purchase subject to negotiation of better terms and the undertaking of further due diligence.  The Corporate Property Services Manager updated the Committee on the outcome of negotiations, setting out the detail which as referred to in the exempt paper before the Committee. 

Councillor G Williamson referred Members to the communication all Members of the Committee had received from Councillor K Crofton, setting out some reservations.  He said these reservations did not take account of the improved position achieved through negotiation, including increased potential revenue.  The Council faced a budget shortfall and the revenue would make a significant impact.

Councillor A Alder proposed a motion supporting a purchase of the property at the price stated in the exempt report.  She said the option to acquire this property had already been discussed at length, and the Council needed to address the shortfall in its budget. 

Councillor A Ward-Booth seconded the motion. 

Councillor M Stevenson said the Council’s aim was to support the number of businesses.  She sought, and was provided with, information on the businesses currently occupying the property as tenants. 

Councillor T Stowe said he had previously objected to the asking price, but in view of the improved terms negotiated, he would support the proposal. 

Councillor I Devonshire asked for clarification on the Committee’s remit regarding allocation of the funding, and the limit of such funding. 

The Corporate Property Services Manager said increased funds could be sought from Council. 

Councillor M Goldspink expressed concern at the length of time the property had been available, and at the prospect of future circumstances changing which could affect the anticipated income.  She suggested deferring a decision in order to take account of the impact of Brexit. 

Councillor G Williamson said awaiting the outcome of Brexit could mean deferral for up to six months, and that uncertainty predicted at the time of the Referendum had not materialised into market impacts. 

Councillor C Redfern agreed with Councillor Goldspink, and suggested a deferral of one month.

Councillor G McAndrew said there was a need to be realistic, and one month would not make an appreciable difference.  In five years’ time the Council could consider redeveloping the property, and whilst he accepted there was some uncertainty, the return per annum for the first five years was good. 

Members raised further points in relation to the market context and the terms of the proposed acquisition.  Councillor Ward-Booth said he understood the concerns expressed, but that legal due diligence would be the next stage and if any problems were detected then, the purchase would not proceed. 

The Head of Strategic Finance and Property said negotiations had resolved what had originally been possible complications when Members had considered the property last year.  The Committee had to follow the criteria for acquisitions which it had considered at its last meeting.  The report before Members set out how the property met the criteria, and proceeding with acquisitions according to those criteria provided assurance as to the approach. 

Councillor A Alder said the Council would ultimately have a capital asset, and could choose to dispose of it. 

In response to a question by Councillor I Devonshire the Corporate Property Services Manager said a visit to the property for Members could be arranged. 

Further questions regarding rent review and the credit checks carried out against tenants were asked, and answers given.

The motion to support the purchase of the property referred to in the exempt paper “Essential Reference Paper B”, and to support the recommendation in the report having been proposed and seconded, it was put to the meeting and a vote taken.  The motion was declared CARRIED. 

RESOLVED – (A) to approve the purchase of the property referred to in the exempt paper “Essential Reference Paper B” at the price detailed; and

(B) to approve delegation to the Head of Strategic Finance and Property and Head of Legal and Democratic Services to undertake due diligence and enter into completion of the acquisition.

Members considered implications of the acquisition for the balance of the capital sum of £3m available to the Committee.  Officers advised the Committee meet before the budget setting process in order to propose to Council that it approve an allocation of further resources, so that further incoming-generating acquisitions could be made.

The Chairman thanked Officers for the successful negotiations carried out in respect of the acquisition which had been agreed at this meeting. 

Members received a presentation from the Corporate Property Service Manager on further property options currently on the market, setting out yield comparisons.  The Corporate Property Service Manager said the properties highlighted in the presentation gave an indication of what was available and the factors to be taken into account.  The Head of Housing and Health reminded Members of the principle that in making investment decisions, there was a link between yield and risk.  

Members discussed options for further consideration, and commented on which properties should be kept “on the radar”. 

The Chairman agreed to a suggestion from Officers that an extraordinary meeting should be held within the next six weeks.

Councillor M Goldspink moved, and Councillor C Redfern seconded, a motion that the press and public be excluded from the meeting for Minute 173 – Consideration of Acquisition, on the grounds that the matter contained exempt information as defined by paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.  After being put to the meeting, and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED

RESOLVED - that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the discussion of Minute xxx on the grounds that it would be likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person, including the authority holding that information).

Councillor A Alder moved, and Councillor T Stowe seconded, a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 August 2019 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.  After being put to the meeting, and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED. 

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 August 2019 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.