Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any announcements from the Chair.

The Chair welcomed all to the meeting. He reminded Members that an Extraordinary Council meeting had been arranged for 20 August 2025, to ratify the appointment of the new Chief Executive Officer.

The Chair also extended the council’s best wishes to past councillor Norma Symonds, who was currently unwell.

To receive any announcements from the Leader of the Council.

Councillor Goldspink also extended her best wishes to former councillor Norma Symonds, who had recently suffered a stroke and was currently in hospital in Chelmsford. Councillor Goldspink advised that she would be arranging for a card to be sent wishing her a full and speedy recovery.

The Leader said that the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager was leaving the council, he thanked her for her service and wished her well. The Leader said that he hoped that Members were able to have a good summer break.

To receive any Members’ apologies for absence.

There were apologies for absence from Councillors Burt, Deering, Deffley, Dumont, Dunlop and Councillor Watson.

To approve as a correct record and authorise the Chair to sign the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 14 May 2025.

Councillor Connolly proposed, and Councillor Copley seconded a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 May 2025, be approved as a correct record, and be signed by the Chair.

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

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 May 2025, be approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chair.

To receive any Members' declarations of interest.

Councillor Goldspink declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of Agenda Item 10 (Community Governance Review – Final Recommendations), on the grounds that she was a Member of Bishop’s Stortford Town Council, and representations had been made by the Town Council.

Councillor Horner declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of Agenda Item 10 (Community Governance Review – Final Recommendations), on the grounds that he was a Member of Bishop’s Stortford Town Council, and representations had been made by the Town Council.

Councillor Swainston declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of Agenda Item 10 (Community Governance Review – Final Recommendations), on the grounds that she was a Member of Bishop’s Stortford Town Council, and representations had been made by the Town Council.

The Director for Legal, Policy and Governance said that Councillors that were dual hatters on various councils did not need to make declarations of interest in respect of Agenda Item 10 (Community Governance Review – Final Recommendations).

To receive any petitions.

Two petitions were submitted to the meeting.

Councillor Jacobs presented the ‘Save Havers shops from closure’ petition on behalf of the petition organiser.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability responded to the petition.

I would like to thank residents for presenting this petition, and to all those that have signed it.

I would like to open by saying that I am in wholehearted agreement with the principal points of this petition, and I would hope all councillors within this chamber support it. Local shops are an invaluable local asset, providing local employment and services, a sense of community, and reduce the need for car journeys. The Havers shops are clearly very well located to serve the local community.

The title of the petition is ‘save Havers shops from closure’, and I am delighted to say that the Council has no plans to close the Havers shops. What has been decided is that the council is going to sell the property. We are currently working with our agent to agree marketing details, and the parade will be offered to the market within the next few weeks.

Since the decision to sell the property was announced, we have been approached by eight different parties who have expressed an interest in buying the parade. I understand that all eight of these potential buyers are seeking to purchase the parade as an investment, looking to retain the tenants and re-let the empty shops. None of the parties have indicated they would be looking to demolish the property and redevelop the site, although of course they may decide to do so later. However, the age and condition of the properties mean that some kind of refurbishment is probably needed soon, which may have an impact on the businesses.

The petition is also posing the question of whether the council can protect local businesses. Probably the best way to do this would be to retain ownership, thus retaining control of rental rates, but unfortunately, the weakening of local government is making this progressively more difficult. Parades such as this one were built post-war, along with the council houses they were designed to serve. Once the council houses around them were sold off, this led to councils owning retail properties scattered around the district. Whereas maintenance would previously be contracted for the entire property portfolio in an area, the loss of the houses significantly increased the cost of managing the shops, due to lack of economies of scale. In addition, as the properties aged, the maintenance requirements increased. The effect of this was that the council only carried out minimal maintenance and this led to the gradual degradation of the properties. Perhaps if the council had more funds, it could have done better than this, but as we know, since 2010 local government funding has been significantly reduced, and there is no sign of this changing in the foreseeable future. The effect of this national policy has been to force local councils to withdraw from providing certain non-essential services. This council is additionally hamstrung  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

Ryan Henson presented the ‘Back off our bins’ petition.

The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability responded to the petition.

Many thanks for taking the time to collect and present this petition which dates from March and April this year.

I think that it is worth making a few clarifications to some of the assertions made within the wording of the document. Firstly, the so called “disastrous new bin collection policy” was discussed and approved by the then Tory run administration of East Herts and was led by the then Tory member for Bishop’s Stortford Thorley Manor who has since moved his allegiance to Reform UK. The public consultation process was run by the previous administration in 2022 immediately prior to the debate and final decision at the Executive in October 2022. The main elements of the policy reflect the legislation passed by the previous Tory central government on Simpler Recycling legislation that is the law of the land. The current Green Lib Dem administration picked up this decision in May 2023. However, having said that this administration is fully behind both the central legislation and the East Herts policy decisions. This is the right approach. Within East Herts we currently throw away more than we recycle and this is unsustainable, the express intention of all these changes is to increase our recycling rates and therefore reduce the amount of waste that goes to be incinerated. This latter point is incredibly important as a carbon tax is set to be introduced on the flue gases of the incinerators that we use and that will prove to be a very significant additional cost to either HCC or the new successor Unitary Authorities but should in of itself drive further waste reduction initiatives.

The wording of the petition states that “From August, they are cutting bin collections to once every 3 weeks”, just for clarity, there will be a collection each week from each household. So, for example, week 1 the residual waste will be collected, week 2 the mixed card and paper will be collected, week 3 the mixed recycling will be collected. If you pay for the brown bin service, then this will be collected every two weeks. Food waste will of course be collected each week from every household.  Approximately 50% of households will have 4 bins to manage, the remaining 50% will by choice have a further bin making 5 for them to manage.

A point worth emphasising is that if residents forget to put out their bins, then there will indeed be a three week wait for the next cycle not the 6 weeks as quoted in the petition. This is what we as residents do as out part of the deal, we pop the right things in the right bin and put it out on the right day. That’s it. The council does the rest come rain or shine.

This administration is very aware of the discomfort that these or indeed any changes generate for residents and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

To receive any public questions.

There were no public questions.

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 meetings on 3 June 2025 and 8 July 2025.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said a Statement of Community Involvement, or an SCI, was an evolving document that must be updated at least every 5 years to meet the Planning and Compulsory Act 2004 (as amended). She said that an SCI simply set out how the council will consult with the public on planning matters.

Members were advised that the previous SCI was adopted in 2019, and this report sought adoption of an updated version, as detailed in Appendix A of the report. The review of the SCI provided an opportunity to update the document to align with the Council’s current priorities, policies, objectives and procedures.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that the SCI aligned with the LEAF priorities in the Council’s corporate plan and the Council’s core value of being a listening council. These were both particularly pertinent to the SCI as they provided a strong focus on the Council being open and transparent whilst promoting listening and engaging with the community in a fair and inclusive way.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that the updated SCI provided ways for the council to achieve that within the planning context. The update also included the changes to the constitution regarding planning matters as agreed in February 2025. She said that the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 had several implications for planning, with many details however still  to be set out via secondary legislation.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that the update to the SCI reflected current knowledge of the legislation and allowed for transition to meet the new requirements once further information was released.

Members were advised that the updated SCI now aligned with the process set out in the timetable to produce the District Plan within the Council’s local development scheme.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that the main changes were set out within the report. In summary, this included more information on the principles of consultation and how the council would implement those principles within planning engagement. There would also be more details in respect of consultation methods and how digital technology maybe used within the planning consultations to help make them more accessible and efficient.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that there would be an engagement strategy template to support preparation of planning policy consultations. She said that there would be new section for neighbourhood plan reviews explaining how that process worked and how communities could get involved.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that an equalities impact assessment could be found in appendix B to the report and this assessed the impacts the updated SCI would have to different groups in the communities.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that once adopted, the SCI before Members would replace the October 2019 version and would be published on website.

Councillor Glover-Ward proposed that the recommendation in the report be supported. Councillor Swainston seconded the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that East Herts Council had agreed to update the District Plan with a view to commence formal work in early 2026. She said that to facilitate this update, a vast quantity of underpinning evidence was required to support the strategies that the council will ultimately choose.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that various evidence-based studies would inform each policy in the District Plan to ensure that these were based on comprehensive and robust information that addressed key local priorities and issues.

Members were advised that the Hertfordshire Green Infrastructure Study was commissioned by the Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Planning Partnership (HIPP) to update the original 2011 green infrastructure plan and to provide a joint approach on green infrastructure planning.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that the current District Plan was informed by the 2011 Hertfordshire Green Infrastructure Plan, which was endorsed as part of the evidence base to inform the current District Plan. She said that this Hertfordshire Green Infrastructure Strategy would, if adopted, form part of the evidence base for the new District Plan.

Members were advised that the full evidence base was detailed within the Statement of Community Involvement and this could be seen under the environment and landscape scheme. The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that there was a plethora of evidence documents including items such as the green belt review, climate change study and the water cycle study.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that the purpose of an evidence base was to support and inform the strategy and policies that were eventually included in the District Plan and that for the avoidance of doubt, there was no hierarchy in the evidence base.

Members were advised that the Hertfordshire Green Infrastructure Strategy provided a strategic framework for considering green infrastructure within the district and covered 6 main GI themes, as  detailed within the agenda.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that green infrastructure was multi-functional with a range of benefits for people, nature and the climate, which underlined why it was so important it was conserved and enhanced in East Herts.

Members were advised that the strategy presented an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of Hertfordshire’s current green infrastructure network and identified strategic priorities and actions to restore and improve green infrastructure in Hertfordshire.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth advised that Officers considered, and she concurred, that the strategic analysis and actions in the Hertfordshire Green Infrastructure HIPP strategy provided an overarching framework that can usefully inform the new District Plan.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that now that work had commenced on collating the evidence base, it was recommended that the strategy was agreed as part of the evidence base for the District Plan.

Councillor Glover-Ward proposed that the recommendation in the report be supported, subject to a slight amendment that had been agreed by the Executive, as detailed on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 128.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that the council had agreed that a review of the adopted District Plan should be undertaken. She said that the process of preparing a District Plan was a lengthy and complex exercise but was essential to provide plan led development.

Members were advised that the process of updating the District Plan, which could take several years from start to finish, required a wide range of supporting evidence and was subject to public engagement and independent examination through various stages and procedures that were set out in law.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that the current adopted District Plan was enabled by the District Plan Executive Panel, which consisted of a sub-group of Members whose remit was to make recommendations to Council via the Executive on maters associated with the District Plan.

Members were advised that the intention, as set out in the agenda, was to reconvene the District Plan Executive Panel in advance of formal work on the new District Plan starting in early 2026. She said there was an ongoing and continuous need to inform Members of progress both on the preparation of the District Plan, and in respect of feedback from the community.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that the preparation process for the District Plan could be time consuming for Executive meetings, which clearly needed to consider other council business, and which may not allow for Members to drill down into the details of a particular issue.

Members were advised that the District Plan Executive Panel would allow for a full consideration before items were then recommended onto the full Executive, and/or full Council. Three Executive Members would sit on the Panel and with all other Members able to attend open sessions, so that everyone could have full input to the discussion.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth advised that all Members would be able to question Planning Policy Officers on the pros and cons of an issue. She said the District Plan Executive Panel had the flexibility to convene meetings that were open to the public with agendas and minutes made available on the council’s website.

Members were advised that any items considered by the District Plan Executive Panel would be presented to the Executive and to Full Council. Councillor Glover-Ward proposed that the recommendation in the report be supported.

Councillor Goldspink seconded the proposal and said that she was delighted that this huge amount of work was being taken on, and that she was extra pleased that all Councillors were being invited to attend if there was a particular part of an agenda that was being discussed. Councillor Goldspink said it was excellent that this was going to be an open and collaborative process.

Councillor Hart said that it was great that the District Plan Executive Panel was going to be an open meeting for people to contribute. She asked how information was going to be disseminated so that Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that planning permission had been granted in January 2025 for 10,000 new homes in the Gilston area, alongside provision for two new major roads and bridges and the many facilities required for these neighbourhoods to thrive.

Members were advised that the proposals were of a scale and complexity previously unseen in East Herts and policy DEL4 of the District Plan required the council to monitor its progress annually. The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that the Section 106 agreement associated with the planning permission also contained monitoring obligations for the provision of data and information to assist in decision making relating primarily to education, transport and travel planning, and also economic development.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said there were also triggers and milestones for the delivery of onsite infrastructure and the payment of financial contributions towards the provision of offsite infrastructure. She said that to provide a structured approach to the monitoring and delivery of the development, a monitoring framework had been developed.

Members were advised that a review group comprising of Officers from East Herts Council and Hertfordshire County Council,  in addition to Officers required in the Section 106 agreement would ensure the co-ordination and oversight of the various monitoring activities.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that this group was not a decision-making body but a means of ensuring that there was co-ordination and oversight between the two signatories of the Section 106 agreement. She said that this allowed for discussion on all aspects of the development between the bodies responsible for monitoring and in some instances for delivery.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that East Herts Council and Hertfordshire County Council had obligations in the Section 106 agreement both as individual bodies and in collaboration. She said that it was important that Officers had a safe space in which to conduct these meetings.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that the monitoring framework set out the council’s approach to how information about the progress of the development would  be publicised and shared with local communities and other key stakeholders. She said that its objectives were to provide a mechanism for tracking the progress of development throughout the build out of the planning permission to help ensure delivery of homes, infrastructure and mitigations in accordance with the required development milestones and triggers, and a record of delivery.

Members were advised that late comments had been received from the Parishes of Hunsdon and Eastwick and Gilston, after the Democratic Services deadline. The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that the council wished to take the opportunity to respond. As a listening council, the input of local communities was  welcomed and encouraged in respect of all development activities across the district.

Members were advised that the council had established several new forums to facilitate community engagement in matters relating to planning applications and the delivery of permitted schemes. She  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that the forest was a designated site of specific scientific interest and a national nature reserve, which gave local people unique access, being in easy reach of East Herts residents. She said that alongside Uttlesford, Harlow and Epping Forest Councils, East Herts had been working in partnership with Natural England and the National Trust to agree how to mitigate the detrimental impact of increasing visitor numbers.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that over the last decade the forest had experienced a doubling of visitor numbers which was unsustainable, with features being degraded and damaged. She said that the report outlined the new arrangements for the collection of a tariff to be applied to residential development in the ‘zone of influence’ – which concerned the eastern part of East Herts as shown in Appendix D.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that the Gilston area – GA1 of the district plan, would be excluded from the tariff due to the extensive green infrastructure within the development. She said that tariffs would be collected immediately following the passing of the report.

Councillor Glover-Ward proposed that the recommendations in the report be supported. Councillor Horner seconded the proposal and reserved his right to speak.

Councillor Devonshire said that he was conflicted on the matter, as the National Trust had other income streams. He said that the additional costs on developers would be passed onto house buyers, but conceded that residents did enjoy the area, with the tariff only £540.

Councillor Estop said that she had reservations regarding the proposal, and that she would abstain from the vote. She said that the report and the context was entirely the information about Hatfield Forest and the National Trust’s own mitigation report, with the important schedule of mitigation which the planning service use in terms of development missing.

Councillor Estop said that the recommendation should include that the Director of Place maintains discretion in relation to other aspects of planning applications. She said that in relation to Gilston being exempt, this was a huge area of people who could go to the forest, and that the tariff was a flat rate, regardless of dwelling size.

Councillor Parsad-Wyatt said that it was fantastic to have the forest on the doorstep. He asked for clarification on the levy, i.e. if this was calculated the same across the entire zone of influence, or if it was proportional to usage.

Councillor Jacobs asked if the tariff was index linked or if it would be increased over time.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that in relation to Gilston, there was so much green space on its doorstep that there would be no need for residents to drive to the forest. She said that she would ask Officers to give a detailed technical answer with regards to the levy and confirmed that there would be regular reviews on the zone of influence tariffs.

Councillor E  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

Councillor Crystall said that the first corporate plan of the joint administration was approved by council in February 2024.  He said that the corporate plan set out the strategic priorities of the joint administration grouped under the acronym LEAF.

Members were reminded that beneath each of the LEAF headings were actions that Officers were tasked with delivering. There were also a series of further actions, projects and measures were then implemented across the council at an operational level.

Councillor Crystall said that with the 2024/25 year completed, the progress against the LEAF priorities had been assessed and report was presented to Overview and Scrutiny Committee for discussion in June 2025. He said that this was a very useful session, and he thanked Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor Crystall said that for 2025/26, the LEAF framework would be maintained with some updates to the actions and objectives reflecting the progress that has been made but also to take account of new challenges that had arisen and needed to be accommodated.

Members were advised that the updated LEAF framework was presented in the report alongside the previous version to help highlight the changes to Members. Councillor Crystall said that this follows from the discussions at Overview and Scrutiny where Members wanted to see the two iterations of LEAF side by side.

Councillor Crystall proposed that the recommendations in the report be supported. Councillor Goldspink seconded the proposal and reserved her right to speak.

Councillor Williamson referred to Appendix A in the Overview and Scrutiny papers and the recommendation. He asked if there were any metrics of how performance was being measured in respect of the LEAF priorities.

Councillor McAndrew welcome the report and referred to the parking strategy and the objective of implementing the new strategy and other options including the LCWIP, to encourage active travel. He said that the LCWIP had not yet gone out to public consultation and was dependent on government funding. He said that he was not quite sure how the LCWIP was relevant to this.

Councillor McAndrew referred to the government’s withdrawal of national support for neighbourhood planning. He asked how the council intended to ensure that parishes, especially those with limited resources, could still develop or effectively update neighbourhood plans. He referred to a specific support that the council could provide.

Councillor McAndrew said that given the council’s 2023 climate emergency declaration, which called for urgent action to cut emissions by 2027, why was the air quality action plan objective for 2025-26 been narrowed to implementation rather than expanding this with new measures.

Councillor McAndrew said that the climate emergency declaration demanded bold action in respect of the Herts nature recovery strategy to protect local habitats. He asked if this change would deliver new resources, land protections or local biodiversity targets.

Councillor Jacobs thanked Councillor Crystall for bringing this matter before Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He referred to the actions set out in section f regarding making East Herts a more inclusive environment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

The Chair of the Community Governance Review working group, Councillor Joe Thomas presented the report. He said that the group had spent 12 months carefully considering and extensively consulting to arrive at the report’s final 12 recommendations, which would serve communities better.

Councillor Thomas said that in relation to Aston Parish Council, the recommendation to defer a decision until 2026 would enable the number of registered electors in Hazel Park to increase.

Councillor Thomas said that the recommendation to extend Bishop’s Stortford Town Council to run parallel with Thorley Street made most sense to give new communities effective representation.

Councillor Thomas said that with regards to Sawbridgeworth, opposition was that warding would destroy the fabric of the community, but other town councils worked well and benefitted from warding.

He said that the recommendation was therefore to ward into 4, along the polling district boundaries.

Councillor Thomas said that the same principles applied to the recommendation for Buntingford, dividing into 2 wards along the B1038.

Councillor Thomas said that throughout the process the group had been guided by the statutory requirements, and he acknowledged the passion and engagement of contributors throughout the process.

Councillor Thomas proposed that the recommendations in the report be supported. Councillor Nicholls seconded the proposal and reserved her right to speak.

Councillor Williamson said that the Conservative Group had two amendments that they wished to put forward, which related to the recommendations for Sawbridgeworth and Buntingford. He said that the amendments had been circulated to Members before the meeting, giving them the opportunity to read them.

Councillor Parsad-Wyatt proposed the following amendment:

Amend point iii of Recommendation (a) of the report as follows:

•             Replace point iii) (“That Sawbridgeworth Town Council be warded […] West ward = 4.”)

•             With: iii) That Sawbridgeworth Town Council remains unchanged.

So that the amended recommendation (a) reads as follows:

Recommendation (a):

That the proposals set out below be adopted by the Council as Final Recommendations for the

purposes of the Community Governance Review: […]

iii. That Sawbridgeworth Town Council remains unchanged.

Councillor Parsad-Wyatt spoke to the amendment, he extended his thanks to the working group and said that the although the majority of the proposals were proportionate, he could not vote in favour of all of the recommendations in their current form. 

Councillor Parsad-Wyatt said that the views of Sawbridgeworth residents and councillors could not be ignored, and to do so would be in contravention of the purpose of the review. He said that the amendment to keep Sawbridgeworth unchanged was not about party politics, with objections to warding by the town council cross-party. He said that this rare unity should be taken seriously, and that if the council was a listening council, they should listen when communities responded strongly.

Councillor Parsad-Wyatt said that the main issue with the proposal was electoral representation and equality. He said that warding based on the current polling districts would see 1 councillor with 174 electors, and 5 other councillors, with a ratio of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

The Director for Legal Policy and Governance presented the report. He said that Members would be aware of the recent senior management restructure, and that following this, Head of Service job titles had been changed to Directorships, and delegations reordered within the Constitution.

The Director for Legal Policy and Governance said that as per paragraph 2.6.3a of the Constitution such changes were required to be brought before Council for their attention, but other than the aforementioned changes nothing new was being proposed. 

Councillor Daar proposed that the recommendation in the report be supported. Councillor Goldspink 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 updates and consequential amendments to the Constitution identified in the attached appendices are received.

To receive Motions on Notice.

One motion on notice was submitted.

Councillor Williams presented his motion on notice. Councillor Glover-Ward seconded the motion and reserved her right to speak.

Councillor Goldspink said that she strongly supported the motion, adding that swifts were lovely birds which enriched the environment and biodiversity. She said that swift bricks were not expensive and were easy to install.

Councillor Horner supported the motion, speaking on behalf of Bishop’s Stortford, which has one of the largest swift colonies in Hertfordshire. He said that everything possible should be done to support the birds.

Councillor Bull supported the motion, noting the swifts that resided in the tall buildings at Addenbrookes Hospital.

Councillor Glover-Ward supported the motion, saying that swift bricks lasted forever, giving homes to fabulous birds.

Councillor Wiliams said that he recognised that in politics lots of things were complicated, but that swift bricks were a simple thing, that could save a special bird, at a low cost.

Having been proposed and seconded, the amended motion was put to the meeting and upon a vote being taken, was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED - In June local activists, Politicians and residents united to declare Ware the first swift town in the eastern England region, this comes of the back of an enormous amount of work from local swift groups and other voluntary organisations like our Men’s sheds.

The reason for this work is that while swifts are beloved by many as a sign of summer, they have suffered large declines in number and are unfortunately now red listed, the causes for this are many but one driver is the reduction in their nesting sites something which we can help offset by mandating swift bricks in all new domestic buildings in the UK.

The UK rightly works to preserve its historic buildings and cultural heritage, our natural heritage is equally as important to who we are, more than that we have a moral duty to preserve for the future the wonders we are so fortunate to have Inherited. The only circumstance in which we should want to compare the scream of the swift with the purr of the turtle dove or the song of the nightingale is in their ubiquity not in their absence, Therefore this council should resolve, to empower its leader to write to all MP’s representing areas in East Hertfordshire, on the councils behalf encouraging them to support (EDM 1065) which urges the government introduce regulations that ‘would require the incorporation into all new domestic buildings of swift bricks’.