Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any announcements from the Chairman.

The Chairman announced that she would be holding an afternoon tea on 16 March 2025 at Hertford Castle and invitations had been sent out.

She said that there was a heavy agenda and reminded Members that they could only speak once on an item and asked Members under Item 8 to ask a supplementary question without any preamble.

To receive any announcements from the Leader of the Council.

The Leader of the Council welcomed Members to the meeting. He said that the Head of Operations, Jess Khanom-Metaman, had left the authority last week to spend more time with her young family. The Leader said she had been instrumental in delivering several projects across East Herts such as Grange Paddocks, Hartham Leisure Centre, and BEAM. He thanked her for her work and wished her well for the future.

The Leader welcomed the new Commercial and Cultural Development Manager, Steve Sargent, at BEAM who had started in January.

The Leader thanked the Hertford Civic Society for awarding BEAM an architectural award as well as Hartham Leisure Centre.

The Leader said that Councillor Goldspink had given her apologies for the meeting due to family illness and on behalf of the Council, he sent her best wishes.

To receive any Members’ apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R Buckmaster, Deffley and Goldspink.

To approve as a correct record and authorise the Chair to sign the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 11 December 2024.

Councillor Wilson proposed, and Councillor Hill seconded a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 December 2024 be approved as a correct record and be signed by the Chairman. On being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 December 2024 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any Members' declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive any petitions.

There were no petitions submitted.

To receive any public questions.

The full responses to the submitted Public Questions can be found in the supplementary document here.

To receive any Members' questions.

The full responses to the submitted Members’ Questions can be found in the supplementary document here.

To receive a report from the Leader of the Council and to consider recommendations on the matters below:

The Leader of the Council presented a report setting out recommendations to the Council made by the Executive at its meeting on 11 February 2025.

The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability presented the Parking Strategy following a public consultation and engagement over five weeks in autumn 2024. He said that the consultation was open to all residents and 1700 responses were received.

The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability clarified that the strategy was the only recommendation that was to be considered by Council and the parking tariff increases were approved by the Executive at their last meeting. He said that support of the parking strategy was independent of parking charges.

The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability said that the Council had approved a £1.75 million income target for parking in February 2024 and the parking strategy set the context and principle of the changes to support the income targets and ambitions of the Council. He said that the strategy was designed to ensure that the council effectively managed its parking whilst managing the challenges of growth. The council aimed to discourage non-essential car journeys and use active travel for short trips.

The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability said that there was a strong focus on resident and business engagement early on in the process and the consultation responses could be found in Appendix A. Pricing had been used to motivate behaviour change and the strategy had 22 actions based on short, medium, and long term.

Councillor Hoskin proposed that the recommendation in the report be supported. Councillor Wilson seconded the proposal.

Councillor Buckmaster said that he would be voting against the proposal because he said there was a strong move within it to get rid of free parking periods. He felt that smaller towns and villages were being treated differently and following the discussion at the Executive, Sawbridgeworth had kept its free period because of a technicality. He felt that if the strategy took away free weekend parking, then cars would park on street and cause further problems.

Councillor Parsad-Wyatt said there were some important actions in the strategy such as electric vehicle charging points and a move to paperless ticketing. He said however that he would have to vote against the strategy as he was not comfortable with the suggestions in the document. He was concerned that emissions-based pricing would affect the poorest.

Councillor Deering said he echoed the comments of his colleagues. He said there were some actions in the strategy, like reducing emissions, that everyone could be supportive of. However, he felt that emissions-based pricing would discriminate against those who could not afford new cars. He added that residents and business owners did not feel their views had been listened to and he confirmed that the Conservative group would not be supporting the strategy.

Councillor Thomas said that the signs in the East Herts operated car parks were cluttered and could be confusing for visitors. He added that the poorest people in the community did not own cars and have to rely on public transport so the emissions-based pricing would not affect them.

Councillor Watson said that residents in Ware were pleased  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9a

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth presented the Call for Sites Update and said that the Council agreed to a review of the District Plan in late 2023 and a revised timetable was agreed in October 2024.  In order to update the District Plan, the planning department needed to assemble a huge amount of evidence and a call for sites exercise was undertaken between July and September 2024.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that landowners, developers, agents, and site promoters were invited to submit areas of land for the council to determine if they would be suitable for development. She said that submitting a site did not confirm that it would be selected for allocation in the District Plan and the report only detailed the outcome of the call for sites and presented the sites submitted.

Councillor Glover-Ward proposed that the recommendation in the report be supported. Councillor Swainston seconded the proposal.

Councillor Hart asked about weighting given to certain criteria when the planners were assessing the sites for development. 

Councillor Estop said that it was important to have a sound District Plan and the planning department would now move to produce Strategic Land Availability Assessment to look at the sites and determine the best sites to allocate for development. She said this was the best process for a spatial strategy and not speculative submission of planning applications for larger sites. She did not think that Full Council was the right place for oversight of the process and needed to be a Member led Committee.

Councillor Buckmaster said he had faith in the planning policy team and said there was an Executive sub-committee to look at the review of the District Plan. He said that this report was part of the District Plan process, and the vast number of sites would be filtered out following engagement with other bodies such as the County Council and Herts Highways. He said that the reason for asking his earlier question under Item 8 was that the proposed reorganisation of local government would put additional pressure on the process and felt that a conversation needed to be had with the government about what could realistically be achieved over the next few years.

Councillor Deering understood that this report was part of a process and knew that not all sites would be picked. He said that any communications with the public would be very important, and he called on the administration to do so. He said that the Conservative group would be supporting the recommendation but made it clear to residents that by supporting it, they were not taking any views on any particular sites.

Councillor McAndrew said that developing the District Plan was a massive task and said that there was a danger that some sites could come forward through the planning process to be developed.

Councillor Woollcombe said he welcomed the call for sites and asked whether there would be a similar call for infrastructure as the district was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9b

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability presented the Budget 2025/26 and Medium-Term Financial Plan 2025-2035 report and said that despite the uncertainty of the future of the district council following the government’s Devolution White Paper, the council were still required to set a balanced budget.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability said that £1.46 million of officer delegated savings and £492,000 of Executive recommended savings had been identified with the majority of officer delegated savings coming from contracts and leaving vacancies open. He said that some savings proposed for 2024/25 budget year were still to be implemented in the 2025/26 budget.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability referred to the savings that had been rejected by the Executive such as reducing planning enforcement, reducing the grant to Citizens Advice and council communications. He said that although these were non-statutory services, these represented good value for money for residents.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability said that the cost of services were displayed in section 1.6 and there had been some gains from the extended producer responsibility scheme and a lower than expected staff pay award. However, these had been offset by a reduction in the income forecast for BEAM, rise in national insurance contributions and continuing liability for Charrington’s House. He said that to cover these costs, an increase of 2.98% in Council Tax had been proposed and it was important that all the savings proposals were realised.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability warned that there were risks ahead with external factors such as the cost of finance and business rates review which was outside the council’s control. He said another risk was the performance of BEAM and whether it could reach its income target, but the business plan was being reviewed with the new manager.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability thanked officers for their work in preparing the budget report and said the financial situation was challenging but the administration was able to present a balanced budget for 2025/26 and work continued at pace to reduce the gap in future years to ensure budget targets are met.

Councillor Brittain proposed that the recommendation in the report be supported. Councillor Swainston seconded the proposal.

Councillor Buckmaster said it was good to hear that BEAM was on its way to making its income targets and the leisure services were making money. He said that the administration had declared early on that they would like to replace the Executive system with an alternative but seemed that they did not mind using their Executive powers. He referred to the decisions on the two key revenue generators; the increase in the garden waste charge and parking tariffs. He said he was not saying that the Executive had not followed due process but felt that Full Council was the place to discuss the budget. He said that he could not support a budget that his own residents were against.  He asked why there were eight Executive Members which was the same as the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability presented the Capital Strategy, Minimum Revenue Provision Policy and Treasury Strategy 2025/26. He referred to Appendix A and the £10.55million capital spend for 2025/26, the majority of which was for the purchase of new bins and refuse vehicles under the new waste contract which would be financed by new debt and small grants. He noted that 2025/26 represented the peak of council borrowing and the council should see borrowing reduced moving forward.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability referred to appendix B and the Minimum Revenue Provision Statement which was required to be approved. He said that the Treasury Management Strategy at Appendix C was a legal obligation under the Local Government Act 2003.

Councillor Brittain proposed that the recommendation in the report be supported. Councillor Copley seconded the proposal.

The motion to support the recommendation having been proposed and seconded was put to the meeting and upon a vote being taken, was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – that the Capital Strategy, Minimum Revenue Provision Policy and the Treasury Management Strategy 2025/26 including the Prudential Indicators contained within the reports be approved.

Please note this report and associated figures are in draft form until the other authorities have set and confirmed their precepts.

The Chairman said that the final version of the Council Tax report had been published in the supplementary agenda.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability presented the report which calculated the total council tax for each parish.

Councillor Brittain proposed that the recommendation in the report be supported. Councillor Horner seconded the proposal.

Councillor Deering said that he acknowledged the requirement for Council to set the Council Tax rates but reminded Members that the Conservative group had voted against the budget in the previous item.

Councillor Horner said he was pleased to see that the parishes were named correctly.

The motion to support the recommendations having been proposed and seconded was put to a recorded vote and the result was as follows:

FOR

Councillors Adams, Andrews, Boylan, Brittain, E Buckmaster, Bull, Burt, Butcher, Carter, Clements, Copley, Cox, Crystall, Daar, Deering, Devonshire, Dumont, Dunlop, Estop, Glover-Ward,  Hart, Hill, Hollebon, Holt, Hopewell, Horner, Hoskin, Jacobs, Marlow, McAndrew, Nicholls, Parsad-Wyatt, Redfern, Smith, Stowe, Swainston, Thomas, Townsend, Watson, Willcocks, Williams, Williamson, Wilson, Woolf, Woollcombe, Wyllie (45)

AGAINST

None

ABSTAINED

Councillor Connolly (1)

RESOLVED – that (A) the Council Tax resolution, as now submitted at Appendix A, be approved;

(B) the local precepts as set out at Appendix ‘A’ be noted; and

(C) the Hertfordshire County Council and Police and Crime Commissioner for Hertfordshire precepts be noted.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability presented the Millstream Business Plan. He said that the council was the only shareholder in Millstream and each year, it produced a 30-year business plan. For several years, Millstream had returned on its capital but there had been recent changes which had affected this income.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability said that interest rates had increased and through the budget setting process, there was a case for winding down Millstream. He said that there were three scenarios set out in the report and the recommendation was supporting scenario 3, to dispose of its properties now.

Councillor Brittain proposed that the recommendation in the report be supported. Councillor Horner seconded the proposal.

Councillor Williamson said that it was a sad moment and Millstream was part of an initiative to generate revenue for the council. He said it had been a good project and did deliver financially and provided housing for residents but recognised that circumstances had changed, and the paper laid out the situation well. He gave his personal thanks to officers who set up Millstream, especially the Head of Housing and Health. He asked if it was the intention to wind up the company after the properties had been disposed of.

Councillor Buckmaster said the report showed how agile the council needed to be. He said that the environment had changed, and it was right that the council took the opportunity to change course. He said that he supported the recommendation.

Councillor Wilson said that when the previous administration took on four capital projects at once, the Liberal Democrats said that it was not prudent.

Councillor Horner acknowledged that Millstream had been set up to make money for the council and at the time, it was a prudent was of going forward. He supported this decision and agreed with Councillor Williamson that it was with a heavy heart.

Councillor Brittain thanked Members for their comments and echoed the thanks for the Head of Housing and Health. He said that external events had had an impact, the Ukraine war had increased the energy price, interest rates and inflation. He confirmed it was the intention to wind up the company when properties had been disposed of.

The motion to support the recommendation having been proposed and seconded was put to the meeting and upon a vote being taken, was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – that (A) Millstream Property Investment Ltd’s 2025/26 Business Plan, presented in the EXEMPT Appendix A, which includes property disposal as an option, be approved

(B) acting as Millstream’s sole shareholder, Council agrees to use its reserved power, under the Shareholder Agreement with the company, to resolve that the company disposes of its properties.

The Interim Chief Executive presented the report on the Appointment of a S151 Officer. She said that the Council was required under Section 151 of the Local Government Act to appoint a Chief Finance Officer and following an open and competitive recruitment process Brian Moldon has been offered the full-time position from 1 April 2025.

Councillor Crystall proposed that the recommendation in the report be supported and said he believed Brian Moldon would be a great addition to the Leadership Team. Councillor Wilson seconded the proposal.

Councillor Deering thanked the Interim Head of Strategic Finance for his help in the short time he had been at the council.

The motion to support the recommendation having been proposed and seconded was put to the meeting and upon a vote being taken, was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – that the appointment of Brian Moldon as the Council’s Chief Financial Officers and Section 151 Officer with effect from 1^st April 2025, be approved.

The Executive Member for Corporate Services presented the Pay Policy Statement 2025/26 and said that the report came to Council every year as it was a legal requirement under the Localism Act 2010 to publish it. He said the report set out the level of remuneration of Chief Officers.

Councillor Dumont proposed that the recommendation in the report be supported. Councillor Cox seconded the proposal.

The motion to support the recommendation having been proposed and seconded was put to the meeting and upon a vote being taken, was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – That the Pay Policy Statement 2025/26 be approved.

The Executive Member for Corporate Services presented the Code for Local Authority Statutory Officers and said the code was the result of a collaborative effort by SOLACE, CIPFA and LLG. He explained that the code focused on the ‘Golden Triangle’ and the statutory roles that underpinned good governance.

The Executive Member for Corporate Services confirmed that the golden triangle structure remained strong and compliant at East Herts and aligned with national recognised standards. The Code made a commitment to transparency and leadership in the governance framework. He said it had been presented to the Standards Committee for comments on 29^th January 2025.

Councillor Dumont proposed that the recommendation in the report be supported. Councillor Dunlop seconded the proposal.

Councillor Clements said that when the code was presented to the Standards Committee, there was a reference in it to the Decision-Making Accountability report which said the golden triangle was not working as it should and believed that was the reason the Code was being presented to Council to adopt. He said that he did not object to the code but without seeing the report, Members would not be confident that the issues had been resolved. He asked if Members could have sight of the report.

Councillor Dumont said that the Code had been developed over a year ago and it was being adopted by several local authorities across the country.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services confirmed that the Code had been developed in July 2024 and had been discussed in several forums such as the Hertfordshire Heads of Legal group and the Standards Committee. He said that the LGA conducted a decision-making accountability (DMA) report last year which was at the behest of the previous Chief Executive in order to assist with the formulation of suggested structures for the senior management team.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services said that the DMA identified that the Golden Triangle wasn’t operating quite as strongly as it should be at that time and highlighted that it was an area that should be strengthened. He said that the DMA was not disclosable as it was conducted in order to allow the Leadership Team to have full and frank discussions around what senior leadership structure better suited the authority today and in the future, and in order to be able to have those discussions, a safe space was required to develop ideas, debate live issues and reach decisions away from external interference and distraction.

Councillor Crystall added that the key parts of the DMA report highlighted the structure of the Leadership Team, and this was something that the Interim Chief Executive was currently looking at.

Councillor Deering said that the DMA report had been referred to in a public meeting and felt that any privilege attached to it was removed. He asked for clarification if the report was privileged or non-disclosable.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services said it was not disclosable but did not have legal privilege status.

Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

At this point in the meeting, Councillor Crystall proposed, and Councillor Deering seconded, a motion that the meeting would continue beyond 10 pm and until the remaining business of the agenda had been determined. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – that the meeting would continue beyond 10 pm and until the remaining business of the agenda had been determined.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services introduced the Review of the Constitution. He said that the constitution was kept under regular review to ensure that it was up to date and fit for purpose. As a result of a recent review by officers, a number of changes were proposed, some as a result of legislative changes and other more minor ones in relation to planning.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services said that Members may be aware that the new Procurement Act 2023 came into force on 24 February 2025 which required the procurement team to undertake a root and branch review of the Contract Procurement Rules at Section 9 of the Constitution. The new CPR had been designed to ensure that the Council was compliant with UK legislation, followed best practice and achieved value for money in all its procurement activities.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services said that in addition to the changes to the CPR, the planning related sections were also reviewed and these changes fell into three areas relating to master planning, speaking arrangements at DMC and minor clarifications/updates to the delegations. In terms of master planning, Members will note that the report explains that since the adoption of the District Plan in 2018 the majority of masterplans for allocated sites have followed the Council’s approach and been endorsed. For those sites that were coming forward on a speculative basis or where the outline planning permission has been granted, master planning is dealt with via a discharge of condition. This usually means they have to be dealt with within a certain period of time.  If not, deemed discharge is assumed.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services clarified that there were circumstances where an exemption may apply to these timescales such as development that falls within Environmental Impact Assessment, but this did not change the proposed changes which provide flexibility to deal with different circumstances.

Councillor Copley proposed that the recommendation in the report be supported. Councillor Nicholls seconded the proposal.

Councillor Copley said that she sat on the Member Constitution Review Group and said that the procurement changes were a straightforward response to new legislation. She said that she also sat on DMC and thought the change to the speaking arrangements made sense as members could now ask speakers on points of clarification.

Councillor Williamson said he also sat on the review group and thanked officers for their work in preparing the amendments.

The motion to support the recommendation having been proposed and seconded was put to the meeting and upon  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager presented the Community Governance Review draft recommendations. She explained that the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 empowered a principal council such as East Herts to review and make changes to community governance within its area. At its meeting on 16 October 2024, Council agreed to carry out a Community Governance Review with the Community Governance Review Working Group being appointed by Council to consider consultation responses and provide recommendations for the review.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager said that the initial consultation was carried out between 28 October 2024 and 6 January 2025 and a wide range of responses were received as listed at Appendix B. She said that the Community Governance Review working group met on 6 February 2025 to consider the consultation responses and provide a set of draft recommendations for Council to approve for a further public consultation. The draft proposals are listed at Appendix A and maps are included where relevant. The group’s rationale for each draft recommendation is provided at paragraph 2.13 – 2.52.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager said that if the draft recommendations were agreed, they would go out to public consultation from 3 March to 12 May 2025. The working group would then meet in June to consider all consultation responses and propose a set of final recommendations to the Council at its meeting on 23 July 2025.

Councillor Williams proposed that the recommendation in the report be supported. Councillor Thomas seconded the proposal.

Councillor Glover-Ward was pleased to see a draft recommendation to put the Rush Green roundabout into one ward.

Councillor Stowe expressed disappointment on behalf on Aston Parish Council that there was no recommendation to create a community council in the Hazel Park development. He felt this should be reviewed and the full development would increase the village population three times.

Councillor Parsad-Wyatt said that Sawbridgeworth Town Council had debated the proposals and decided that it did not want to be warded but one draft recommendation proposed to ward Sawbridgeworth. He said it felt like the working group was not listening to the people on the ground and the fact that other towns have wards did not recognise the specific identities across Sawbridgeworth.

Councillor Buckmaster agreed with the comments from Councillor Parsad-Wyatt. He said warding did not work for the town and said that this council expressed support for proportional representation some time ago and felt Sawbridgeworth was the simplest form of this voting with a long list of candidates.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager emphasised that these recommendations were not final and encouraged people to respond to the consultation.

Councillor Hollebon felt that the whole of Thorley parish should be absorbed into Bishop’s Stortford.

Councillor Nicholls said she noticed that Buntingford Town Council were not in favour of being warded but she welcomed the chance for local residents to put their views across.

Councillor Deering said some reservations had been aired and discussed the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Councillor Marlow presented his motion on notice. He said that there were 3.4 million children in poverty in the UK with 1 in 11 in poverty in Hertfordshire and 1 in 20 in East Hertfordshire. He said this showed a complete failure of the system and society and he was asking Council to write to the Chancellor and Prime Minister to remove the two-child limit on benefits, reinstate the £20 uplift and pay that uplift to parents under 25.

Councillor Copley seconded the motion and reserved her right to speak.

Councillor Redfern said that she did not oppose the motion but highlighted that the 2015 start date was misleading. She said that child poverty began to rise in 2010.

Councillor Wilson said that parents and families in his ward were struggling financially, and it was not a case of just getting a better job. He said in these circumstances, the state should be helping, and it was not the fault of the children. He said the gap between the rich and the poor was growing and there were frustrated and disempowered people out there losing faith in mainstream politics.

Councillor Carter supported the motion and said that the majority of children of families in poverty were working. She said the cost of living was really high and the motion called for a solution that could improve lives of children and invest in their future.

Councillor Parsad-Wyatt said some of the statistics on child poverty were eye opening. He said that he supported the motion in principle, but he would have to abstain as he felt the motion did not ask this council to do anything except write a letter. He said getting the funding to provide this extra money could have unintended consequences and said he would like to see a motion brought forward about what the council can be doing as a district.

Councillor Buckmaster said that the motion meant well but he was concerned about the aims. He said that two-thirds of the county’s proportion of council tax went on social care, a quarter on children’s services. He said that all governments did not provide enough money and the county council was subsidising Special Educational Needs on behalf of the government. He thought that a working group would be the best mechanism to come up with some measures to help alleviate child poverty.

Councillor Crystall said that the working group suggestion was a good one. He said that he was happy to write a letter and highlighted that the Executive had been determined not to cut the Citizens Advice funding.

Councillor Clements said he would be abstaining for similar reasons. He said that the government had its own limitations and the one of the first things they did after the election was set up a task force for tackling child poverty. He did not think that a letter would encourage the government to do more than what was already happening.

Councillor Daar said that the council had given  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.