Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Stephen Giles-Medhurst, Roger Seabourne with the substitutes being Councillors Steve Drury and Raj Khiroya.  An apology for absence was also received from Councillor Stephen Cox.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the Policy and Resources Committee meeting held on 14 March 2022 and the Extraordinary Policy and Resources Committee held on 24 May 2022.

The minutes of the Policy and Resources Committee meeting held on 14 March 2022 and the Special Policy and Resources Committee meeting held on 24 May 2022 were confirmed as a correct record subject to a spelling correction of the word there to their in the minutes on 14 March 2022 on Page 10, Paragraph 2 first line and were signed by the Chair. 

Items of other business notified under Council Procedure Rule 30 to be announced, together with the special circumstances that justify their consideration as a matter of urgency. The Chair to rule on the admission of such items.

The Chair advised that agenda items 9, 12a and 12b were not published 5 clear working days before the meeting but had agreed they were of sufficient urgency to be taken at the meeting the reasons for urgency being as follows:

Item 9 Discretionary Council Tax Energy Rebate Scheme – so that the rebate scheme can be agreed and the Council are able to pay out the funding.

Items 12a (Adoption of Statement of Community Involvement for the SW Herts Joint Strategic Plan) and 12b (Approval of Initial issues and options (regulation 18) consultation for SW Herts Joint Strategic plan – so that the Council can agree the adoption of the SCI and approve details for the consultation of the plan.

The Chair had agreed to take items 12a and 12b first to allow the outside speaker to be able to leave the meeting once the items were completed.

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest

This report seeks agreement of a Statement of Community Involvement for the South West (SW) Herts Joint Strategic Plan (SCP), which sets out the broad parameters that will guide all consultation on the emerging strategic plan.

Chris Outterside from the SWH JSP introduced both the items to the Committee and referred to the presentation provided at the Local Plan sub-committee the week before but wished to emphasise the following key points and would cover both the reports.

The first report was on the Adoption of Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) for SW Herts Joint Strategic Plan and would enable consultation to take place on the plan.  A draft was received last year by the Council for approval to consult on that document.  This document was effectively the adoption of that and allowed the SWH JSP to formally consult on that plan.

The second report follows on from the Adoption of the Statement of Community Involvement and required agreement to the Regulation 18 plan consultation which was the first statutory consultation phase of the SWH JSP.  It would then follow to review the associated sustainability appraisal which was the technical document which sits beneath it.  In terms of the content of the reports it was important to note that virtually identical documents and recommendations would be received across all the authorities in SWH.  The Regulation 18 consultation would not be able to continue unless all the 5 authorities approve it.  In terms of the Regulation 18 consultation it is based on a set of visions and objectives which had been formed over the last 6 months but does not consider growth options, housing numbers, Green Belt release or call for sites it is a very high level plan which looks at a series of objectives and visions for SWH.  Stakeholders would be consulted on the plan with details provided in the report.  There was a communication and engagement plan, which had been compiled in consultation with the LA’s communication officers, which would run in parallel to this and would be very important in terms of the messaging around the plan.  The consultation would largely be based online but would now start slightly later than what was proposed in the report with the consultation now extended into October following Government agreement and support and would now start in September and last for 8 weeks.

A Member felt that the overall plan looked sensible but was very high level but asked if the plan would have any impact on people’s cost of living particularly around the further restrictions on new building and the radical shift away from the car.  Also would the plan further increase regulation.

It was advised that in terms of the cost of living this was a consultation on a proposed vision and objectives and was seeking people’s feedback on whether they agree we should have more sustainable movement across SWH. It was not proposed to deploy the plan within the short term but follows on from the Local  ...  view the full minutes text for item PR9

This report seeked agreement of the Policy & Resources Committee to refer the Regulation 18 consultation document for the SW Herts Joint Strategic Plan, ‘Realising our Potential’, and associated Sustainability Scoping Report  to Full Council to approve for public consultation.

Similar approvals are being sought from the other South West Herts authorities, with consultation scheduled to take begin in August 2022.

Councillor Chris Lloyd moved, seconded by Councillor Andrew Scarth the recommendations as provided in the report.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being unanimous.

RECOMMEND:

1.         That the following documents are issued for consultation:

a)    South West Hertfordshire 2050 – ‘Realising our Potential,’ Issues and Options document (Appendix 1); and

b)    Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report (Appendix 2).

and

2.           Delegate authority to the Director of Community and Environmental Services, in consultation with the Lead Member for Infrastructure and Planning Policy to:

a)    Confirm detailed consultation arrangements; and

b)    Make any minor changes to the documents referenced above before they are formally published for comment.

The report is being presented to the Committee to agree to re-establish the Constitution sub-committee for 2022/23 but to request that the Covid-19 Response sub-committee is not re-established.

The report was being presented to the Committee to agree to re-establish the Constitution sub-committee for 2022/23 but to request that the Covid-19 Response sub-committee is not re-established.

It was proposed that the Members appointed to the sub-committee be proportional based on the number of seats each Group has on the Council.  Following the election (5 May 2022) the number of seats held by each Group is: 23 Liberal Democrats; 12 Conservative and 3 Labour.  The Green Party have one seat on the Council but are not a Group. 

It is proposed that the sub-committee has a total number of seats of 9 and for it to be proportional the allocation of the seats be:

•           5 Liberal Democrats

•           3 Conservative

•           1 Labour

Any Member of the Council is able to be appointed as a Member of a sub-committee and any Member can be a substitute.

Members wished to thank officers for all their work during what had been very challenging times and the stress placed on them and hoped it would never happen again.  This was endorsed by all Members of the Committee.

Councillor Chris Lloyd, seconded by Councillor Sarah Nelmes, moved the recommendations as set out in the report.  Councillor Ciaran Reed wished to propose an amendment to one of their Group nominations to the Constitution sub-committee and would confirm to the Committee Team.  It was advised that substitutes can be appointed to attend the meetings.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

To re-establish the Constitution sub-committee.

That Members appointed to the Constitution sub-committee be proportional based on the number of seats each Group has and that the allocation of seats be 5, 3 and 1 with the Members being:

Cllrs Sarah Nelmes, Stephen Giles-Medhurst, Chris Lloyd, Roger Seabourne and Dominic Sokalski, Ciaran Reed, Lisa Hudson, Debbie Morris and Stephen Cox subject to confirmation of any amendment to the nominations to the Committee Team.

That no decision making powers be delegated to the sub-committee.

That any Member of the Council can be appointed a Member of the sub-committee and all Members can be substitute Members.

To not re-establish the Covid-19 Response sub-committee for 2022/23.

This report seeks Member approval of a CIL Governance process. This report proposes a governance structure which will be the principal means by which CIL monies will be spent on the infrastructure necessary to support new development.

The protocols proposed will ensure that CIL is managed in an open and transparent way and in accordance with the Community Infrastructure Regulations (2010) (Regulations).

This report seeks Member approval of a CIL Governance process. This report proposes a governance structure which will be the principal means by which CIL monies will be spent on the infrastructure necessary to support new development.

The protocols proposed will ensure that CIL is managed in an open and transparent way and in accordance with the Community Infrastructure Regulations (2010) (Regulations).

The Head of Regulatory Services introduced the report and advised that the Council had been receiving CIL money since 2015 and currently had around £7m in total although some of that money did go to the Parishes but amounts depended on whether the Parish had a Neighbourhood Plan adopted.  Members may recall that there had been proposals put forward to use some of the money for a new school in Croxley Green, which was a Herts County Council request, and for play areas and there was a further request tonight for another play area.  The report set out how we would advertise the funding on our website and then infrastructure providers can make a claim for that money via a request form.  We would also provide details on how we would assess the requests.

A Member requested that a briefing on CIL be organised as this was a complicated but important topic although we did not know how long CIL would last and also what would be the implications with the forthcoming White Paper. 

The Chair advised that any briefing would be provided virtually as Members only need to meet when making decisions and it would be more environmental to meet virtually.

A Member asked what currently happens with CIL money and how does this proposed structure differ.  On the Parish money was there any accountability for them to the Council on how that money is spent and that it is spent within the rules.  Clarification was sought with regard to Paragraph 2.3 and reference to the unparished area of Rickmansworth which seemed to add confusion.

The Head of Regulatory Services responded that in terms of how the money is spent currently there has not been an agreed regime in place.  With any infrastructure projects the cost is substantial and as in line with other CIL authorities the money was pooled for a number of years.  The Governance arrangements have been evolving and had been in discussion with the past Head of Service in Local Plans to get to this position. There has been increased pressure on that funding from Herts County Council who applied for nearly £1m of funding recently.  Some of the reason for the high amount currently pooled is people are not aware that we have that funding but are becoming aware now and we will have increased pressure to provide CIL funding.  This report seeks to regularise the process so that it is transparent and communicate that we are collecting monies and that they are available.  From this there will be a lot more demand on the funding and we will need to make  ...  view the full minutes text for item PR12

Following on from funding awarded in September 2021 and subsequent report presented to Policy and Resources Committee on 6 December 2021, Hertfordshire County Council has been provided with a further £6.172m funding from the Government’s Household Support Fund (HSF), this figure doesn’t include administration support. This funding will be used to help people in need with the cost of food and energy between April to the end of September 2022.

The Partnerships Manager introduced the report and advised that Herts County Council had been provided with a further £6.172m of funding towards the household support fund.  This was previously allocated from October to March but another round of funding had been allocated until the end of the September.  This allocation had changed slightly from the previous one where this funding support will have 32% go to Pensioners which would be retained by Herts County Council therefore the funding the Council get is reduced to £55,000 in total.  The report had broken down what partner allocations will be awarded to spend which had been varied slightly from the previous report based on what partners were able to administrate on our behalf and for which they had demand from the residents.  All residents can apply directly to the Council in order to access the funding support.  The recommendations were to agree to the breakdown of the spending but also to agree, as there is future fund, that future allocation decisions are delegated to the Leader and Executive Head of Service in order to prevent any delay on decisions.  We had received feedback from partners that they were disappointed that there had been delays in receiving the funding. 

Councillor Ciaran Reed moved an amendment to the recommendation.  The Councillor said in terms of the mechanism on future allocations and given that the Council recently passed an amendment on how emergency decisions are agreed could the details be notified to all Group Leaders which allows for everyone to know what is happening.

The Chair agreed with the amendment but proposed that the normal urgent decision process be used.

The Chief Executive advised that the recommendation could be that future allocation decisions be delegated to the Executive Head of Service in consultation with the Group Leaders.  The Chair and Proposer agreed with the proposal.

A Member asked how the agencies are identified, how do they bid for the funding and do they have any admin charges or does the full amount go to the recipients.

The Partnership Manager advised the agencies are decided on who our most frequent partners are which we work with and engage with. The agencies do not need to bid for the money although a couple of organisations who we don’t normally work with have approached us to access some of this funding and we are happy to provide some funding.  The admin cost had been retained by the Council with £5,000 of the total allocation being admin. 

The Chair asked if other agencies take off some money for admin too.  The Partnerships Manager advised that they don’t take money off for admin.

A Member said the mechanism had changed from the previous report with the County Council now keeping back a third for pensioners.  They felt the system before was better as it was all being administered locally at Three Rivers.  How can be guarantee that the pensioners of Three Rivers actually get the third? Councillor Chris Lloyd was happy  ...  view the full minutes text for item PR13

The report seeks to allocate a total of £29,979 of CIL funding to local infrastructure projects to support growth in Three Rivers.

The Head of Regulatory Services advised that the report seeks agreement to allocate a total of £29,979 of CIL funding to local infrastructure projects to support growth in Three Rivers.  The funding was for the Barton Way Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) and would be match funded by the Parish Council who would also pay towards the works.

Councillor Chris Lloyd said there had been a long standing agreement between the Parish and the District, although would like to know how long, and moved the recommendation to support the allocation as an upgrade is required.  This was seconded by Councillor Phil Williams.

A Member asked if there was a formula for how much the Council put in and how much the Parish put in and how do we ensure equity across the District.  The Lead Member for Leisure advised that this was a contractual arrangement agreed a long time ago.  The MUGA needed to be repaired but does not set a precedent for what other Parish/District percentages might be as it is an historic agreement.

The Head of Regulatory Services advised the agreement with the Parish was made in 2004 with the Parish.  Looking at CIL and how we spend it, it does not specify that it has to be proportionately spread across the District or Parish areas. Every application is assessed on its merits.  Officers will be mindful of the scale of development and under the CIL regulations there is a list of criteria which includes details on whether there is match funding and what other funding is being used from external partners to allow the scheme to happen. Any other funding coming in does put the project higher up the priority rating.  There still needs to be some work done on how we prioritise the schemes but there is no requirement under CIL to make it equal across the District or Parish or who contributes what, it will be on a case by case basis and a decision finally for Members.

The Director of Community and Environmental Services said the amount of money the Parish have would depend on whether they have a Neighbourhood Plan, whether they would have had 15% contribution or 25% and how much development would have taken place in that Parish.  If you had too rigid a structure you could be preventing the Parish from enabling some of these things to go forward.  The Governance arrangements approved tonight will go some way forward to making the process more formal but with a degree of flexibility as the point is to encourage things to happen and not to have the funding sitting there for ever and enable it to be spent in the District.

A Member said it would be good to receive details on how well used the play areas/pitches are being used as part of the application so that it can be prioritised.

In response to a question on the amount being asked for the Head of Regulatory Services advised that  ...  view the full minutes text for item PR14

The government has announced a package of support known as the Energy Bills rebate to help households with rising energy bills.

This includes discretionary funding for billing authorities to support households who are in need but are not eligible for the Council Tax Rebate scheme.

The Government had announced a package of support known as the Energy Bills rebate to help households with rising energy bills.

This included discretionary funding for billing authorities to support households who are in need but are not eligible for the Council Tax Rebate scheme.

The Shared Director of Finance advised that the funding of the scheme totalled £205,000.  The Discretionary scheme intended to support energy bill payers who are not eligible under the terms of the core scheme.  The scheme can also be used to provide targeted ‘top-up’ payments to the most vulnerable households in Bands A-D.  We have until to September to get the money paid out and the proposed scheme was based on our Council Tax Support (CTS) Scheme where we had already completed the benefit analysis on people to establish the poorest residents in the District. The scheme proposed £150 payment for anyone in Band E-H who is in receipt of CTS and a top up payment of £40 for everyone in Band A-D.

The Chair advised that the Council have a Council Tax Reduction Scheme which is already in place and is means tested so this was an effective way of getting to the right people because we know they are in receipt of means tested benefit. 

The Shared Director of Finance advised that as soon as we receive applications with bank details from residents we are then able to pay them and to try and make sure we help as much as we can.  We are inviting people in to complete the application forms if they are not able to complete online or over the telephone.  We are not emailing people as there had been a lot of scamming and we would not be asking for bank details.  We would ask Members to get the message out to residents to apply.  It was about trying to get the money out to the people who need it most within the timescales.  If we had any money left by September it would need to go back to the Government.

Councillor Sarah Nelmes moved, seconded by Councillor Phil Williams, the recommendation as set out in the report.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED the voting being unanimous.

The Chair wished it be noted that all of the schemes which came out during Covid and the grants which needed to be paid out the Revenue and Benefits had to work really hard to organise all the payments and they should be thanked for all their hard well and the team had done heroically.

RESOLVED:

Agreed the DCTER scheme criteria as detailed in 3.1 and 3.1.1 of this report.

This report shows the year end position for the financial year ending on 31 March 2022 for both revenue and capital and makes the following recommendations:-

•           to carry forward to 2022/23 certain unspent revenue budgets and;

•           to re-phase those capital budgets that require completion in 2022/23

The report focuses on the variation between the latest agreed budget and the final expenditure and income for the financial year.   This comparison provides an indication of the accuracy and robustness of financial control and the achievement of the strategic objective to manage resources to deliver the Council’s strategic priorities and service needs.

This report shows the year end position for the financial year ending on 31 March 2022 for both revenue and capital and makes the following recommendations:-

•           to carry forward to 2022/23 certain unspent revenue budgets and;

•           to rephase those capital budgets that require completion in 2022/23

The report focused on the variation between the latest agreed budget and the final expenditure and income for the financial year.   This comparison provides an indication of the accuracy and robustness of financial control and the achievement of the strategic objective to manage resources to deliver the Council’s strategic priorities and service needs.

The Head of Finance advised that the Council do have a significant underspend on revenue of £1.4m with a carry forward request of £602,000 which would leave a surplus of £786,000 to return to balances at year end subject to the recommendations being agreed.  A couple of points were highlighted to Members which had contributed towards that position.  We had some unplanned housing grant of £127,000 and also recycling credits of £147,000 which were received from County very late in the year.  We also have an underspend on our Leisure contract which includes £96,000 of additional funding which was agreed in the year to support the Leisure provider which they did not need in 2021/22 but we do need to carry forward to support them in 2022/23.  On capital there was a significant carry forward request of just over £11m but highlighted that the majority of that (£10.47m) related to investment in Pre-Emption sites.  We put that into the budget in February anticipating that we would be able to complete on the purchase of the land by 31 March but unfortunately that had not been possible due to the legal process which needs to be progressed.  So that budget had been requested to carry forward into 2022/23.

A Member said spending less than budgeted was not normally a bad thing and it had been explained the reasons for the Leisure underspend but noted the underspend for corporate climate change was significant as well and wanted to understand the constraints that the Council face.  When you asking to defer amounts into the next year to what extent are they necessary as opposed as going into savings.  The Member also picked up on a lot of funds going into agency workers for waste management.

The Director of Community and Environment Services advised on waste management we have had a lot of vacancies and it had been very difficult to employ people on a permanent basis particularly HGV drivers and loaders as there are other opportunities particularly during the pandemic when there has been a lot more delivery activity and more demand for drivers and we have had difficulty filling posts.  We have reviewed salaries and have applied bonuses and as from the beginning of July we have another HGV driver and 3 more loaders due to start with us and are just going through the DBS checks.  This will get us  ...  view the full minutes text for item PR16

To receive the Committee’s work programme.

The committee received its work programme

RESOLVED:

That the work programme be noted

           If the Committee wishes to consider the remaining item in private, it will be appropriate for a resolution to be passed in the following terms:-

            “that under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined under paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act. It has been decided by the Council that in all the circumstances, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.”

            (Note:  If other confidential business is approved under item 3, it will also be necessary to specify the class of exempt or confidential information in the additional items.)

The Chair moved, duly seconded, the following motion:

“that under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined under paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act. It has been decided by the Council that in all the circumstances, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.”

On being put the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED the

voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

Agreed to move into Part II business.

To receive a report

The Committee received a report.

RECOMMEND:

Agreed the decision but that public access to the decision and report be denied until the matter is resolved.

The Committee received a report.

RECOMMEND:

Agreed the decision but that public access to the decision and report be denied until the matter is resolved.