Agenda and draft minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Stephen Cox, Lisa Hudson, Khalid Hussain, Ian Morris and Mike Sims.

To confirm as being a correct record the minutes of the meeting of Full Council held on 09 December 2025 and for them to be signed by the Chair.

The minutes of the meeting held on 09 December 2025 were considered.

An amendment was proposed by Councillor Cooper to correct paragraphs three and four. The Leader of the Council Councillor Giles-Medhurst confirmed that the proposed corrections were accepted as factual amendments.

That, subject to the agreed amendment, the minutes of 9 December 2025 were approved as a correct record.

Councillors Joan King and Stephen King declared pecuniary interests in item 10, Review of Statement of Licensing Policy and would leave the Chamber for the duration of the item.

Councillor Sarah Nelmes declared a non pecuniary interest in item 8F, Community and Voluntary Sector Grant Agreements due to membership of a management committee associated with a grant recipient.

Councillor Drury declared a pecuniary interest in item 8F, Community and Voluntary Sector Grant Agreements and would leave the Chamber for the duration of the item.

To receive an update on the Chair’s activities since the last meeting.

Councillor Harry Davies paid tribute to Eleanor Clarke, Councillor of Three Rivers District Council from 1999 to 2003 and Hertfordshire County Council from 2001 to 2005. Other Councillors spoke warmly of Eleanor, noting her contribution and she would be sorely missed.

The Chair of the Council announced details of the Chairman’s Charity events, including a quiz night to be held at the Penn Chamber in the evening of the 17 April. and a Golf Day being held at Rickmansworth Golf Course on Saturday 14 March which includes a game of golf, breakfast and lunch.

As an order of business Item 8(d) was moved on the agenda as it formed an appendix to Item 7(a).

To consider any petitions received by the Council under Procedure Rule 18.

No petitions were received.

To receive any questions from the public submitted under Procedure Rule 15 and to note the answers provided.

Four public questions had been submitted in advance of the meeting and published with the agenda.

Barry Grant was not present to ask a supplementary question.

Jon Bishop, on behalf of Chorleywood Residents’ Association and Three Rivers Joint Residents asked a supplementary question regarding the timeline for progression for the Regulation 19 and how speculative planning applications would be prevented. The Leader of the Council, Councillor Giles-Medhurst replied that Officers had advised that Government officers hoped to respond as quickly as possible but the inclusion of additional sites would delay progression. The only effective way to prevent speculative applications was to progress the Local Plan.

Gary Ansell was not present to ask a supplementary question.

Sue Webb, on behalf of the Lemonfield Group asked a supplementary question regarding a petition concerning a proposed HMO and requested that the Council issue an Article 4 Direction. The Leader of the Council, Councillor Giles-Medhurst replied that an Article 4 Direction requires Secretary of State agreement and must be supported by robust evidence and that officers advice was that sufficient evidence was not currently available. The Council must determine applications in accordance with planning legislation and policy.

That:

(a)  The MediumTerm Financial Plan (MTFP) and Capital Programme, as presented to Policy and Resources on 26 January 2026, be approved subject to the following changes:

·         That the final parish precept figures are reflected in the MTFP at Appendix 1

·         That, following the final settlement, the level of Non-Domestic Rates and Revenue Support Grant funding used to support the budget is reflected in the MTFP at Appendix 1 and balanced against the Collection Fund Reserve.

·         Provision is made within the revenue and capital budget for a Heritage and Parks Enhancement Programme, it will allow a range of projects to be completed, including but not limited to the following:

(i)    Delivery of an additional dog exercise park.

(ii)   Parking measures most likely to be required at The Green, Croxley Green.

(iii)  Heritage improvements at Dickinson Square.

(iv)  Additional entrance improvements at Leavesden Country Park (Furtherfield area).

(v)   Projects relating to The Withy Beds and Stones Orchard.

(b)  Additional budget for arboriculture management of £90,000 per year for 2026/27 and 2027/28.

(c)   Additional money is made available to bring forward the parking schemes programme:

(d)  Additional money is made available to speed up the programme of Conservation Area Appraisals:

(e)  An additional £10,000 is added to the rolled forward revenue for Rickmansworth Town Improvements in 2026/27.

(f)    £5,000 revenue per year in 2026/27 and 2027/28 is allocated to support community-led litter picking initiatives.

(g)  An additional £5,000 is allocated to the capital programme per year in 2026/27 and 2027/28 for repairing council-owned footways and alleyways.

(h)  £150,000 revenue per year in 2026/27, 2027/28 and 2028/29 for the additional capacity recommended by the Peer Review for the period leading up to and immediately after local government reorganisation.

·         £2,250,000 is allocated to the capital programme in 2026/27 for the Local Authority Housing Fund tranche 4 with £1,000,000 of the funding coming from government grant.

·         That the revenue budget for 2026/27 totalling net expenditure of £15,243,445 and the draft revenue estimates for the period 1 April 2027 to 31 March 2029 giving a balance on the general fund at 31 March 2029 of £4.2M be approved. (Appendix 1)

·         That £2.0m be considered as a prudent minimum balance for the general fund.

·         That the capital strategy, including the Minimum Revenue Provision strategy and the Treasury Management Policy, as presented to Policy and Resources Committee on 26 January 2026 be agreed, subject to the changes outlined above, and the total investment programme for 2026/27 be agreed at £6,794,941.

·         That the arrangements for funding the 2026/29 capital strategy and investment programme resulting in an estimated balance of capital resources at 31 March 2029 of £1,989,308 be agreed.

·         That the financial and budgetary risks presented to The Policy and Resources Committee on 26 January 2026 be approved and their management monitored by the Audit Committee.

·         That the Council Tax Reduction Scheme remains unchanged other than for the updating of  ...  view the full agenda text for item 115a

The Leader introduced the Medium Term Financial Plan 2026/27 Liberal Democrat Proposals, referring to the recent peer review and confirming that the budget had been fully costed and signed off by the Director of Finance. It was emphasized that the proposals represented a balanced budget with investment in key priorities.

During the debate, Members expressed differing views on the proposals. Supporters of the budget highlighted investment in social housing, sustainability initiatives, leisure provision and community services. Reference was made to continued weekly waste collections, property investment returns and funding allocated to conservation appraisals and Local Plan work. It was stated that the Council remained in a comparatively strong financial position.

Other Members raised concerns regarding the use of reserves and whether sufficient savings and efficiency measures had been identified. Reference was made to opportunities for technological efficiencies whether these had been fully explored. Questions were raised regarding the delivery of previous budget commitments, the pace of conservation area appraisals, and the allocation of funding in connection with the Afghan resettlement programme. Concerns were also expressed about the protection of Green Belt land and whether sufficient financial provision had been made in that regard.

In responding to the debate, the Leader addressed the principal issues raised by Members.

In relation to concerns about the use of reserves, it was stated that the Council’s reserves position remained prudent and proportionate. The Leader emphasized that reserves were being used strategically to support investment and transformation, not to support unsustainable revenue expenditure.

Responding to comments regarding the efficient savings and the use of technology including artificial intelligence, the Leader stated that the Council continued to pursue efficiencies and service improvements through digital transformation. It was acknowledged that technological change must be implemented responsibly and in a way that protected service standards and statutory compliance.

In relation to conservation area appraisals, the Leader recognized that progress had been slower than originally anticipated, largely due to resource pressures and competing priorities, particularly Local Plan work. It was confirmed that additional provision had been included within the budget to accelerate this work.

Addressing Local Plan funding and protection of the Green Belt, the Leader confirmed that specific budget provision had been made for Local Plan work in the base budget, alongside earmarked reserves. It was emphasized that sufficient funding was available should additional legal or consultancy support be required.

On Article 4 Directions and HMOs, the Leader reiterated that such directions required robust evidence and carried financial implications, including potential compensation risks. It was stated that the cost of introducing an Article 4 Direction could be significant and that the Council must act within the legislative framework.

The Leader concluded by stating that the budget contained no service cuts and no redundancies, maintained weekly waste collections, sustained investment in leisure and environmental services, and demonstrated sound financial management.

The substantive motion was put to the vote and declared as CARRIED by the Chair with the voting as follows:

For Councillors, Davies, Drury, Gazzard, Giles-Medhurst, Grewal,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115a

That:

·         Council confirms that it will apply the following resolution for special and general expenses for 2026/27:-

a.    that the following functions being either those provided equally across the district or incurring minimal expenditure be declared general expenses:-

·         allotments;

·         litter, salt and dog bins;

·         highways, trees and roadside verges;

·         seats and shelters;

·         youth centres;

·         crime prevention;

·         land drainage;

·         footpath maintenance;

·         footpath lighting;

·         community arts;

·         off-street car park maintenance;

·         street naming;

·         Dial-A-Ride;

·         play-schemes

·         cemeteries

·         YMCA Woodlands building in Abbots Langley

·         The Centre, South

b.    that the following functions are declared special expenses:-

·         Woodlands (apportioned on the basis of acreage) including the ranger at Leavesden Open Space and 50% of the Arboriculture and Landscape Officers’ costs

·         Community halls (including apportionment of Oxhey Hall);

·         Playing fields and open spaces (excluding water-based activities and maintenance met from commuted sums); based on the Grounds Maintenance contract.

·         Aquadrome Treated as 50% general expense and 50% special expense apportioned to the Batchworth Community Council.

·         Watersmeet (all costs except the pantomime charged to the unparished area and Batchworth Community Council as a community hall. The pantomime is treated as a general expense).

Councillor Price introduced the item and moved the recommendations in relation to Special Expenses, which were seconded by Councillor Giles-Medhurst.

In introducing the report, it was explained that Special Expenses were levied in accordance with the statutory framework to reflect the services provided in particular parts of the District and not elsewhere, and that the calculations had been undertaken in line with established methodology. It was noted that parishes declare the services they provide and that the District Council determines its Special Expenses accordingly.

During the debate, Members raised a number of issues concerning the allocation and transparency of Special Expenses.

Concerns were expressed regarding the continued inclusion of Watersmeet within the Special Expenses calculation. It was suggested that Watersmeet did not operate in the same way as other community facilities and that its inclusion disproportionately impacted residents in Rickmansworth. Reference was also made to business rates paid in respect of Watersmeet and whether alternative governance arrangements, such as a charitable trust model, might be explored in the future.

Members also debated the position of the Aquadrome. It was argued by some Members that the Aquadrome represented a key asset for Rickmansworth residents and that the condition and management of certain areas had given rise to concern. Questions were raised regarding whether expenditure allocated through Special Expenses was sufficiently transparent and whether residents could clearly see how the funds were being applied. Particular reference was made to car park conditions and long term management plans.

Other Members spoke in support of the existing arrangements, stating that land owned and maintained by the District Council necessarily required appropriate funding and that the methodology for apportionment had been consistently applied. It was emphasized that the budget itself had already been approved and that the Special Expenses decision concerned the allocation of costs rather than the overall level of expenditure.

A further issue raised during debate was the relationship between parish precepts and Special Expenses, and whether the two should be presented more distinctly in future documentation to assist clarity for residents.

Councillor Cooper moved an amendment which was seconded by Councillor Fraser

“To remove Watersmeet from the Special Expenses Calculation”

The Monitoring Officer advised that if the amendment were carried, the council would not be able to set the Council Tax at this meeting and an extraordinary meeting would be required. It was further advised that while the overall budget would not change, there would be implications for Council Tax billing and cashflow timing, particularly in relation to payments due to Hertfordshire County Council.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared LOST by the Chair with the voting being

For Councillors, Alley, Campbell, Edwards, Fraser, Hearn, Merali, D Morris, Ranger, Reed, Sian and Stungo (12)

Against Councillors, Davies, Drury, Gazzard, Giles-Medhurst, Humphreys, Khiroya, J King, S King, Lloyd, Major, Martin, Nelmes, Price, Raeburn, Rainbow, Scarth, Smith, Tankard, Whatley-Smith and Winter. (20)

Abstention Councillors, Mitchell. (1)

The substantive motion was put to a recorded vote and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

That

·         The following amounts be calculated for the year 2026/27, in accordance with Sections 31 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992:-

being the amounts given by adding to the amount at (f) above the amounts of the special item or items relating to the dwellings in those parts of the Council’s area listed above divided by the council tax base, as the basic amounts of its Council Tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate.

(h)

being the amounts given by multiplying the amounts at (g) above by the proportion in paragraph 3.7.

Councillor Price moved the recommendations relating to the District element of the Council Tax. It was explained that the calculation combined the District element, Special Expenses and Parish Precepts and that the 2.99% increase was calculated across the total district tax base. Councillor Giles-Medhurst seconded the motion.

On being put to the vote the substantive motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair with the voting being

For Councillors, Davies, Drury, Gazzard, Giles-Medhurst, Humphreys, Khiroya, J King, S King, Lloyd, Major, Martin, Mitchell, Nelmes, Price, Raeburn, Rainbow, Scarth, Sian, Smith, Stungo, Tankard, Whatley-Smith and Winter (23)

Against Councillors, Alley, Campbell, Cooper, Edwards, Fraser, Hearn, Merali, Morris, Ranger and Reed. (10)

1.1             That it be noted that for the year 2026/27 the Hertfordshire County Council and the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hertfordshire have stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the Council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the categories of dwelling shown below:-

1.2             That, having calculated the aggregate in each case the Council in accordance with Section 30 (2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the following amounts as the amounts of Council Tax for the year 2026/27 for each of the categories of dwellings shown below:-

Councillor Price moved the recommendations to set the Council Tax, incorporating the Hertfordshire County Council and Police and Crime Commissioner precepts. Councillor Giles-Medhurst seconded the motion.

On being to the vote, the substantive motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being

For Councillors, Davies, Drury, Gazzard, Giles-Medhurst, Humphreys, Khiroya, J King, S King, Lloyd, Major, Martin, Mitchell, Nelmes, Price, Raeburn, Rainbow, Scarth, Sian, Smith, Stungo, Tankard, Whatley-Smith and Winter. (23)

Against Councillors, Alley, Campbell, Cooper, Edwards, Fraser, Hearn, Merali, D Morris, Ranger and Reed. (10)

To consider any recommendations arising from the meeting of the Policy and Resources Committee held on:

·         26 January 2026

That:

·         The report is agreed.

Councillor Giles-Medhurst moved the recommendation to approve and publish the Council Pay Policy Statement 2026. The motion was seconded by Councillor Nelmes.

In introducing the item, it was noted that the Pay Policy Statement was a statutory requirement.

During debate concern was raised that the report had not been discussed in detail at committee stage and that the list of posts subject to market factor supplements did not include traffic engineers. It was suggested that recruitment difficulties in this area were well established and that without appropriate market supplements the Council would struggle to deliver its parking programme commitments.

On being put to the vote, the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being 23 votes for, 10 votes against.

That:

·         Full Council adopt the Council Plan 2026-2029.

Councillor Giles-Medhurst moved that Full Council adopt the Council Plan 2026/2029. The motion was seconded by Councillor Nelmes.

Members noted that the plan had been considered by the Service Committees and the Policy and Resources Committee, and that minor amendments had been incorporated following Member feedback. The Leader advised that the Council would reflect upon comments arising from the recent peer review, particularly in relation to targets and performance measures.

During debate, concern was expressed that the formal peer review report had not yet been received and that Members were relying on informal feedback. It was confirmed that the formal report was due mid-march but that summary feedback had been presented and circulated.

The motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED by the Chair with the voting being 23 votes For, 0 votes Against and 10 Abstentions.

That:

·         Full Council agree the final service plans 2026-29 in conjunction with the budget.

The recommendations in the report were moved by Councillor Giles-Medhurst and seconded by Councillor Nelmes.

It was reported that the Service Plans had been considered at Service Committees and Policy and Resources Committee and that minor amendments had been incorporated following Member comments.

During debate, reference was made to postal vote renewal requirements and the proportion of postal voters who had not been renewed. Concern was expressed regarding potential disengagement among vulnerable residents, particularly those in care homes and retirement accommodation. It was suggested that further work be undertaken through the relevant Service Committee work programme to encourage renewals although no amendment was proposed.

It was confirmed that reminder communications had been issued to affected electors and that officers were continuing to monitor renewal figures.

The motion was agreed by general assent.

That:

·         Full Council notes that the Administration will publish its final recommendations on Financial Planning 2026/27 to 2028/29 five working days prior to the Council meeting on 24 February 2026 and present them at this meeting.

As an order of business Item 8(d) was moved on the agenda as it formed an appendix to Item 7(a).

That:

·         Full Council note the content of the report, updated policy and Strengthened Biodiversity Duty Report

·         Approve the updated Three Rivers Biodiversity Policy

·         Approve the reporting cycle of Biodiversity Duty to be every 5 years and for the Council Biodiversity Policy to be reviewed on the same timeline.

Councillor Tankard introduced the report and moved the recommendations in the report. The recommendations were seconded by Councillor Lloyd.

In introducing the item, it was noted that the report strengthened the Council’s biodiversity approach and included monitoring of biodiversity net gain delivery. It was reported that the majority of biodiversity net gain projects within the district had been delivered on site.

During debate, reference was made to biodiversity net gain calculations and the potential to secure further biodiversity improvements, particularly in relation to waterways and speculative development. It was suggested that additional opportunities should be explored.

In response, it was stated that biodiversity net gain operated in accordance with the statutory metric applicable to individual development sites and that gains must relate to the characteristics of those sites.

The motion was agreed by general assent.

That:

·         Full Council enter all contracts and/or grant agreements above £25,000.

·         Full Council to delegate authority to the Associate Director of Corporate, Customer and Community for grant extensions of up to 6 months and amendments to grant agreements.

Councillor Drury declared a pecuniary interest and left the chamber at 22:03. 

Councillor Lloyd introduced the report and moved the recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Giles-Medhurst.

Whilst presenting the report, reference was made to the range of organisations supported through the grants programme, including advice services, community transport, youth and mental health provision, and voluntary sector partnerts. It was noted that the grant provided to Citizens Advice was among the largest made by district and borough councils in Hertfordshire.

During debate, Members spoke in support of the voluntary sector and highlighted the value or discretionary grants, particularly at a time when many authorities were reducing support.

On being put to the vote, the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair with the voting being by general assent.

Councillor Drury returned to the Chamber at 22:08.

That:

·         The Environmental Enforcement FPN levels remain as they are, detailed in Table 1 paragraph 3.3 at the current time. 

·         That during the next fees and charges process the FPNs for fly tipping (section 33) and Duty of Care (section 34) be set at £450 (reduced charge £350) and remain at that level for at least two years.

·         That during the next fees and charges process all other FPNs remain at their current level, detailed in Table 1 in paragraph 3.3 and remain set at that level for at least two years.

Councillor Nelmes introduced the report and proposed the recommendations. Councillors Giles-Medhurst seconded the recommendations.

It was explained that environmental fixed penalty levels would remain unchanged and that fees and charges would be set at £4450 in order to reduce unnecessary court proceedings.

An amendment was moved by Councillor Cooper and seconded by Councillor Alley.

“The Fixed Penalties Notices for the following offences be set at the following levels with immediate effect:

“

During debate on the amendment, it was stated that the average court fine was lower than the proposed fixed penalty level and that reducing the fixed penalty could encourage offenders to pursue court proceedings. It was suggested that deterrence should remain a key consideration.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared LOST by the Chair, the voting being 10 votes For, 23 votes Against.

The substantive motion was then put to the vote and was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being 23 votes For, 10 votes Against.

That:

·         Full Council adopt the council’s Civil Penalty Notice Policy to enable the council to adhere to our statutory obligations and ensure any enforcement action is fair, consistent and proportionate.

·         Full Council to delegate authority to the Associate Director of Corporate, Customer and Community in collaboration with the Lead Member to make minor amendments to the Policy if required.

Councillor Drury moved the recommendation to adopt the Civil Penalty Notice Policy which was seconded by Councillor Giles-Medhurst.

During the debate, Members discussed enforcement powers, Landlord compliance, and the need to ensure proportionality and effectiveness of civil penalties in advance of the implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act.

It was agreed that the policy be adopted and that authority be delegated to the Policy and Resources Committee to review and amend the policy if necessary through urgent action.

On being put to the vote, the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being by general assent.

That:

·         In the event that the responses from the public consultation do not materially impact the revised Policy which require significant changes as consulted upon, that the Head of Regulatory Services in conjunction with the Chair of the Licensing Committee is delegated to make minor changes to the Policy, if required, and then for the revised Policy to be formally adopted by Full Council on 24 February 2026

Councillors Joan King and Stephen King declared a pecuniary interest in the item and left the Chamber at 22:27 and the Vice Chair took the Chair for this item.

The recommendations were moved by Councillor Davies and seconded by Councillor Giles-Medhurst.

On being put to the vote, the motion was declared CARRIED by the Vice-Chair, the voting being by general assent.

Councillors Joan King and Stephen King returned to the Chamber at 22:28.

That:

·         Full Council agree the 3.8% raise to the member allowance in line with September’s CPI.

Councillor Giles-Medhurst moved the recommendations and Councillor Price seconded. Councillor Giles-Medhurst pointed out the recommendation were from the independent panel and the uplift was in line with the pay award with staff and it had been customs and practice , irrespective of party views to always accept the independent panel recommendations.

During debate reference was made to the overall performance of the Council and the appropriateness of the proposed uplift.

On being put to the vote, the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being 23 votes For, 10 votes Against.

That:

·         Council notes the representations from Councillor Cooper and this report by the Chief Executive.

This item was not reached.

To receive written reports from the Lead Members on activities falling within their remit since the last meeting of Full Council.

This item was not reached.

To receive the answers to questions submitted to the Leader and Lead Members.

This item was not reached.

To consider any Motions submitted under Council Procedure 11.

This item was not reached.