| Time: | 7.30pm | Place: | Council Chamber, Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City |
| PRESENT: | Councillor Tricia Cowley (Chairman), Councillor R.L. Shakespeare - Smith (Vice-Chairman), Councillor Mrs A.G. Ashley, Councillor Alan Bardett, Councillor D.J. Barnard, Councillor Clare Billing, Councillor Judi Billing, Councillor John Bishop, Councillor John Booth, Councillor P.C.W. Burt, Councillor Paul Clark, Councillor Julian Cunningham, Councillor Bill Davidson, Councillor Faye S Frost, Councillor Jane Gray, Councillor Jean Green, Councillor Simon Harwood, Councillor Cathryn Henry, Councillor Fiona Hill, Councillor David Kearns, Councillor Lorna Kercher, Councillor Joan Kirby, Councillor David Leal - Bennett, Councillor David Levett, Councillor Ben Lewis (from 7.52pm), Councillor Bernard Lovewell, Councillor Sandra Lunn, Councillor Ian Mantle, Councillor Jim McNally, Councillor Alan Millard, Councillor Gerald Morris, Councillor M.R.M. Muir, Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, Councillor Frank Radcliffe, Councillor Mike Rice, Councillor Deepak Sangha, Councillor Deborah Segalini, Councillor Adrian Smith, Councillor Mrs C.P.A. Strong, Councillor R.A.C. Thake and Councillor M.E. Weeks. |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | Chief Executive, Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance, Strategic Director of Customer Services, Corporate Legal Manager, Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management, Strategic Planning & Projects Manager, Acting Development and Conservation Manager, Democratic Services Manager and Committee and Member Services Manager. |
| ALSO PRESENT: | Alderman F.J. Smith; and 9 members of the public. Dave Green and Tashmina Hoque (Pro Action). Mr David Payne (Hammersmatch); Mr Max Lyons (Lyons, Sleeman and Hoare Architects); and Mr Mike Moult (Moult Walker Chartered Surveyors). |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 19 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gary Grindal, John Harris, Steve Hemingway, T.W. Hone, Tony Hunter, Sal Jarvis, S.K. Jarvis and A.D. Young. |
Noted | ||
| 20 |
MINUTES Minutes It was moved by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, seconded by Councillor David Levett, and RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Annual meeting of the Council held on 5 June 2014 be approved as a true record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the replacement of the name of "Councillor David Billing" with "Councillor Frank Radcliffe" in the 2014/15 membership of the Hitchin Committee set out in Appendix B to the Minutes. |
Agreed | ||
| 21 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS No additional business was presented for consideration by the Council. |
Noted | ||
| 22 |
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (1) Councillor Jane Gray It was with great pleasure that the Chairman presented an engraved crystal bowl, together with the framed Council resolution of thanks, to the past Chairman, Councillor Jane Gray. (2) Long Service Awards Simon Trosser The Chairman advised that Simon had joined the Council as a Community Charge Assistant in 1989 as part of the extended Revenues Team responsible for the implementation of the Community Charge. In the intervening years he had also been part of the Team that implemented Council Tax and he then progressed to become a Collection/Inspection Officer responsible for making calls on customers relating to money owed to the Council and inspecting empty properties to ensure that the Council was maximising its income from these. Despite being "out of the office" for most of the working day, Simon was a popular member of the Team and never missed any social opportunity to mix with his colleagues. The Chairman commented that, in his youth, Simon was a very useful rugby player and he still performed his other sporting passion of golf. Perhaps Simon's greatest achievement whilst at the Council was meeting colleague Virginia and persuading her to become his wife. They had two teenage children, Hannah and Ben. Virginia Trosser The Chairman announced that Virginia was born in New Zealand and brought up in Australia. She found herself in the UK just at the time that the Council was recruiting its Team for the implementation of Community Charge and had been with the Council ever since. Starting as a Community Charge Assistant, Virginia was now one of the Senior Revenues Officers and one of the most prolific processors of work. Virginia had also gained expertise in Non-Domestic Rates, as well as Council Tax, and her willingness to help colleagues at any time had made her an excellent and respected Supervisor. Virginia was married to another of her colleagues, Simon, and they had two teenage children, Hannah and Ben. Like any good Aussie, Virginia never missed the opportunity to "rub it in" whenever her adopted Country lost to either Australia or New Zealand at any sport. Equally, she kept a low profile whenever results went the other way. Virginia involved herself in all aspects of office life and was a very popular member of the Team. Alison Gibbons The Chairman stated that Alison had joined the Council as one of its youngest recruits to the newly formed Community Charge Team. Joining the Council from British Aerospace, Alison quickly took to working with the public and took no time getting to grips with her new post. Starting as a Community Charge Assistant, Alison was now a Senior Revenues Officer with particular responsibility for the Council's Recovery Team. This was a very challenging role, which Alison performed with great skill and expertise, having the ability to diffuse the most difficult of situations. Alison was the life and soul of any social activity and could be relied upon to bring joy and laughter to all those around her. Alison's outgoing disposition and ability to do her job ensured that she was very popular and respected by her colleagues. Alison was married to Andrew and they had two children, Jamie and Louis. It was moved by the Chairman, seconded by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, and RESOLVED: That the Council places on record its sincere thanks to Simon Trosser, Virginia Trosser and Alison Gibbons for their long and valuable service to local government in North Hertfordshire. (3) Declarations of Interest The Chairman reminded Members that, in line with the Code of Conduct, any Declarations of Interest needed to be declared immediately prior to the item in question. (4) Pro Action The Chairman welcomed Dave Green (Chief Executive Officer) and Tashmina Hoque (Membership Development Officer) from Pro Action, her chosen charity for the year, and invited them to give a presentation on the work of the charity. Dave Green advised that Pro Action Hertfordshire had been in operation for 6 years, and supported over 220 youth clubs and children's groups, ensuring that over 40,000 young people were engaged in weekly activities. The activities were run by over 5,000 volunteers, plus 1,400 part-time and over 300 full-time workers. Dave stated that Pro Action provided a young people's training programme, with over 200 free places each year for Dance Leadership courses and Group/Team work courses, offering pathways to leadership, communication skills and the opportunity to train as a peer tutor. For adults, Pro Action provided a Core Skills Programme for anyone working with children and young people in Hertfordshire, including Child protection (levels 1 and 2); First Aid; Food Safety/Health and Safety; Addressing difficult behaviour; activities for all; and communicating with children and young people. In terms of membership of Pro Action, Dave explained that Membership Development Officers provided a personalised one to one guidance and support service. They also organised DBS checks on volunteers and the Core Skills Training course for adults. Pro Action had achieved a Quality Mark, which was a national accreditation to evidence good practice. Dave commented that Pro Action also provided Specialist Youth Clun insurance; Policy and procedure templates; a support network to share good practice and ideas: fun activities for young people; regular newsletters; and representation (through the Membership Development Officers) at District, County and regional levels. Dave concluded by stating that, in short, Pro Action had been set up to provide what groups needed to give great opportunities to children and young people, with the aim to see all children and young people in Hertfordshire thriving. Tamshina Hoque introduced a slide that showed all of the organisations in North Hertfordshire that were members of Pro Action. She outlined the support work that Pro Action had been involved in with two of those organisations, namely Codicote Youth Club and Great Ashby Youth Club. The Chairman thanked Dave and Tashmina for their presentation. |
Noted | ||
| 23 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Council was addressed by the following individual in respect of Item 6 on the agenda - Update on Churchgate and Surrounding Area, Hitchin. (a) Mr David Payne (Hammersmatch) and Mr Max Lyons (of Lyons, Sleeman and Hoare Architects) Mr David Payne advised that he was Hammersmatch had been in possession of a long lease for Churchgate since 2001. They were now ready to commence a major redevelopment of the site, and sought a 150 year lease from the Council for the enlarged area needed for the scheme. Hammersmatch were also offering £250,000 towards investment in Hitchin Market. He introduced Mr Max Lyons of Lyons, Sleeman and Hoare Architects, and invited him to present Hammersmatch's redevelopment proposals. Mr Lyons advised that his practice comprised over 100 architects, specialising in retail schemes. With the aid of A1 boards, he showed some of the recent schemes designed by the practice including Bicester Retail Village (the most successful retail park per square foot in the world); Covent Garden; Spitalfields Market; and the Lion and Lamb development in Farnham. Mr Lyons referred to one of the plans for Hammersmatch's proposed scheme for Churchgate, which showed the existing Churchgate area in blue and the Market area in brown. He felt that one of the reasons why Churchgate had not been refurbished in the past was due to the proximity of the Market, which had a detrimental effect on Churchgate in terms of its appearance, especially on non-market days. Mr Lyons advised that the scheme would create a Town Square overlooking St. Marys. The existing Churchgate would be refurbished, with new residential units on the upper floors. The scheme also provided for the façade of Churchgate as it faced onto Market Square to be improved. The proposals also contained plans for a new cinema as part of the complex. Mr Lyons stated that Hammersmatch was close to an agreement with English Heritage and NHDC Planning and Conservation Officers regarding the design of the scheme. The Chairman thanked Mr Payne and Mr Lyons for their presentation. (b) Mr Robin Dartington (on behalf of Keep Hitchin Special) Mr Dartington began by stating that Keep Hitchin Special (KHS) was requesting an amendment to Recommendation (iv) in the Officer report where it said "Any discussion over the design of proposals are to be with the Local Planning Authority only as part of normal pre-application discussion" by the addition of "except that the location and design of any new or re-invigorated Hitchin Market should also be discussed with the public pre-application through workshops organised at the cost of the developer". Mr Dartington advised that the bye-line of KHS was ‘Caring for our Historical Market Town'. KHS believed passionately that Hitchin was an exceptionally fine example of a historic market town, but also believed that its character today - and certainly its vitality - was still very much influenced by Hitchin Market as it existed today. Mr Dartington felt that the Council may understand, therefore, that KHS were disappointed at the small emphasis in the report to securing the optimum future of Hitchin Market within any proposals for the Churchgate area. Recommendations in the report included "to allow the Council to progress its aspirations for the Churchgate Area to protect the medium to longer term vitality and viability of the town…". However, KHS could find no indication in the recommendations that the Council acknowledged the contribution that Hitchin Market made to the vitality and viability of Hitchin Town Centre. Mr Dartington commented that Section 8 of the report identified the additional information needed from developers before the Council could decide a way forward. Paragraph 8.4.1 dealt with the Market, and put as the first consideration maintaining the Council's income (which was only £27,000 per annum) and the relationship with the overall retail offer in the town was listed last. This gave the impression that the Council saw the Market only as a cash cow - albeit at so low a level that a cash calf might be a better term. There was no reminder that footfall in the whole town centre was noticeably greater on market days, that the Market was responsible for a large part in the vitality of the whole of Hitchin Town Centre, so that its financial value to the Council's income was much greater than the £27,000 rent for the actual site. Mr Dartington stated that KHS therefore hoped that the Council would ensure that its aspiration for the future of Hitchin Market was that it would continue to feature as a vital part of the retail offer in the town. As Hitchin Markets Ltd had noted, there were several fixed stalls that sold goods not available anywhere else in town. The range of goods was so wide that Hitchin Market had been described as Hitchin's department store, albeit open air. To fulfil this aspiration, developers needed to be required to express the unique character of Hitchin Market in any proposals. One essential feature was that the Market continued to be integrated with the shopping area, so that shoppers flowed from one to the other without any break. KHS was convinced that an isolated grid of similar stalls - located on whatever scraps of land were left over after the developer had cherry picked the best - would not be accepted by the town. Mr Dartington advised that the Hammersmatch scheme proposed to downsize the Market - so unacceptably reducing the variety of its offer and its financial impact - and to separate it from the traditional shops and, worse, to fragment it. The need to move really only arose from including a cinema whose operator had, allegedly, insisted on the market being removed. If the cinema was replaced by shops and alternative entertainment space, then surely the could remain in its current location, with any area lost to enlarging the Churchgate area being replaced by better use of the Queen Street end. So it seemed to KHS that the Council must choose between a cinema and Hitchin Market. Which would benefit Hitchin more overall? Mr Dartington advised that Hammersmatch was asking the Council to appoint a consultant to resolve the market's future, which thankfully officers did not support. The Council had found to its cost that so-called experts were far from infallible. Consultants tended to promote a standard solution, here likely to be a boring grid of similar stalls that provided flexibility in letting. The people who understood what Hitchin Market needed were the people who used it. KHS felt that the report totally ignored the contribution the public could make if only invited, providing research, ideas, sketch layouts, surveys of opinion - all at no cost to the Council. The two days the public spent on the Churchgate Planning Brief contributed hugely to the final Brief being so close to the real needs of the town. The Chairman thanked Mr Dartington for his presentation. |
Noted | ||
| 24 |
UPDATE ON CHURCHGATE AND SURROUNDING AREA, HITCHIN Report Appendix A Appendix A1 Appendix B The Leader of the Council (Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham) presented the report of the Project Executive for the Churchgate Project Board (the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance) in respect of an update on discussions with, and requests by, interested parties regarding potential development options for Churchgate and its surrounding area, and recommendations for the way forward. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A - Hammersmatch Churchgate Extension Scheme proposal - plans and schedule of areas; and Appendix B - Hammersmatch: Hitchin Market Location options summary to 2014. The Leader of the Council referred to the background to the Churchgate situation, as set out in Section 7 of the report. In respect of third party options for development of the site (including Hammersmatch's proposals), she took the Council through Section 8 of the report, including the fact that the four key aspects expected to be addressed by potential developers included a solution for the market; a solution for car parking; the financial viability of the proposal; and the provision of an impact assessment on remaining Council landholdings in the area. The Leader of the Council stated that neither of the two developers (including Hammersmatch) who had expressed an interest in the redevelopment of Churchgate was fully seeking to meet the four key aspects set out in the Council's guidance as set out above. It was clear that, in order to progress any scheme as landowner, be it with Hammersmatch, the other developer or any other interested party, would require further investment by the Council in seeking the necessary expert advice. It would also mean considerable investment if the Council were to progress a solution for the Market as requested by Hammersmatch. A considerable amount of officer time would also be required. The Leader of the Council advised that, whilst officers welcomed the proposals and recognised the request by both parties to enter into some form of exclusive discussions, as a means of providing some commitment towards the progression of their scheme, the Council would be putting itself at risk of being challenged by other parties, and as landowner it must act separately from the Local Planning Authority (LPA). Moreover, the Council would again be in a situation where it was spending money on external advice without any guarantee that a development scheme would eventually come forward. The LPA would have other requirements that must be met before considering whether to grant planning permission or not. The Leader of the Council reminded Members that the Council had not allocated any capital or revenue funding towards the redevelopment of the Churchgate area. If the Council was minded to instruct officers to proceed with the necessary investigatory work required to assess any proposal, officers would require authority to incur the costs associated with the expert advice required, and a Full Council decision to release additional funding would therefore be required. The Leader of the Council commented that there were clearly significant potential financial resource implications associated with the above proposals. The Council's resources were already stretched following a number of years of savings and efficiencies, and this challenging financial environment was forecast to continue until 2018 at least. Any further investment request would need to demonstrate a realistic prospect of delivery and worthwhile financial return. The current information before the Council from both Hammersmatch and the other company did not provide such certainty. The Leader of the Council stated that it was the officers' view that, as agreed by Full Council in July 2013, the Council should continue its work on the progression of the Local Plan, which would provide the necessary strategic policy framework and guidance for the future of the Churchgate area. Funding had been agreed for the progression of the Local Plan. Given the lack of available funding and the uncertainty around the delivery of a financially viable scheme, it was the officer view that any interested party should be encouraged to seek pre-application advice and full planning permission, prior to approaching the Council as landowner to seek to enter into exclusive discussions on their scheme. The Leader of the Council advised that, at that point in time, the Council could consider entering into exclusive discussions with the potential developer in delivering a viable scheme that would provide a worthwhile financial return for both parties. It was suggested that procurement advice should be sought at this stage on the Council's ability to enter into such an exclusivity agreement with a developer. It was also noted that the Council could be seen at this stage to consider a 150 year lease agreement as part of any development agreement on a scheme on the site. As part of seeking planning permission, the potential developer would need to satisfy design requirements and, amongst other things, be required to demonstrate a viable scheme and to find a suitable solution for the market and for car parking. As an amended recommendation, it was moved by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, and seconded by Councillor David Levett, so that (a) Recommendation 2.1(v) would be moved to become the new 2.1(i), with the other Recommendations being subsequently re-numbered; and (b) the words "with a developer who has obtained planning permission" being deleted from the new Recommendation 2.1(i). Following debate, and in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.16 (e), Councillor Bernard Lovewell asked for a recorded vote to be taken on the amended motion. (Voting: For: Councillors Mrs A.G. Ashley, A. Bardett, D.J. Barnard, John Bishop, John Booth, P.C.W. Burt, Tricia Cowley, J.M. Cunningham, Bill Davidson, Faye S Frost, Jane Gray, Jean Green, Simon Harwood, Cathryn Henry, Fiona Hill, David Leal-Bennett, David Levett, Ben Lewis, Bernard Lovewell, Jim McNally, Alan Millard, Gerald Morris, M.R.M. Muir, Mrs L.A. Needham, Mike Rice, R.L. Shakespeare-Smith, Mrs C.P.A. Strong, R.A.C. Thake and Michael Weeks - 29. Against - None. - 0. Abstentions: Councillors Clare Billing, Judi Billing, Paul Clark, David Kearns, Lorna Kercher, Joan Kirby, Sandra Lunn, Ian Mantle, Frank Radcliffe, Deepak Sangha, Deborah Segalini and Adrian Smith - 12. The amended motion was carried.) It was therefore, RESOLVED: That, having considered the proposals by the various interested parties, and the risks to delivering the Council's aspirations for the Churchgate area, it be agreed to: (i) Commit budget of £10,000 at this stage to enable procurement advice to be sought on the Council's ability to enter an exclusivity agreement; (ii) Continue to await the publication of the draft Local Plan, whilst at the same time considering the approach to take (as per recommendation (v) below) based on the options considered in the 18th July 2013 Full Council report; (iii) Not to enter into any form of exclusive discussions with any interested party until full unchallenged planning permission is gained and a solution for the market and car parking is obtained as part of such planning permission; (iv) Consider the option of a 150 year lease agreement as part of any development agreement on a scheme which has gained full planning permission; (v) Continue an open dialogue with all interested developers on the Churchgate site in the interim. Any discussion over the design of proposals are to be with the local planning authority only as part of normal pre-application discussion; and (vi) Commit budget for expert advice and support in progressing a development agreement only once a developer has obtained full planning permission and procurement advice has confirmed exclusivity is possible. REASON FOR DECISION: To allow the Council to progress its aspirations for the Churchgate area of Hitchin to protect the medium to longer term vitality and viability of the town, in the light of updated planning policy considerations and prudent use of Council funds. |
Agreed | ||
| 25 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM CABINET: 24 JUNE 2014 - RISK MANAGEMENT UPDATE Referral Appendix A Appendix B The Council considered the Minute of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 24 June 2014, in respect of the Risk Management Update (Minute 7 refers). A copy of the report considered by the Cabinet was included with the agenda, as were the following appendices: Appendix A - The Top Risks of Managing the Council's Finances, the Northern Transfer Station & Ancillary Facilities, Comingled Waste and the Replacement payroll system/service; and Appendix B - Risk Management Annual Report. It was moved by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, seconded by Councillor Michael Weeks and, upon being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED: That the Annual Risk Management Report for 2013/14, as set out at Appendix B to the report, be adopted. REASON FOR DECISION: To comply with the requirements of the Risk and Opportunities Management Strategy. |
Agreed | ||
| 26 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM CABINET: 24 JUNE 2014 - REVENUE BUDGET OUTTURN 2013/14 Referral Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C The Council considered the Minute of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 24 June 2014, in respect of the Revenue Budget Outturn 2013/14 (Minute 9 refers). A copy of the report considered by the Cabinet was included with the agenda, as were the following appendices: Appendix A - General Fund Summary; Appendix B - Carry Forward budgets requested for 2014/15; and Appendix C - Collection Fund as at 31 March 2014. The Council noted an erratum to the recommendation, which had been tabled at the meeting, which clarified that the figure of £1.289million should be a net transfer "to" (rather than "from") earmarked reserves. It was moved by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, seconded by Councillor David Levett and, upon being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED: That the net transfer to earmarked reserves of £1.289million (as set out in Paragraphs 8.14-8.16 and Table 8 of the report), be approved. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure Cabinet's budget monitoring role is fulfilled before the finalisation of the Annual Statement of Accounts by 30 June 2014; and to ensure that changes to the Council's balances are monitored and approved. |
Agreed | ||
| 27 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM CABINET: 24 JUNE 2014 - ANNUAL TREASURY MANAGEMENT REVIEW 2013/14 Referral Appendix A The Council considered the Minute of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 24 June 2014, in respect of the Annual Treasury Management Review 2013/14 (Minute 10 refers). A copy of the report considered by the Cabinet was included with the agenda, as was the following appendix: Appendix A - Annual Treasury Management Review, March 2014. It was moved by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, seconded by Councillor David Levett and, upon being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED: (1) That the actual 2013/14 prudential and treasury indicators be approved; and (2) That the Annual Treasury Report for 2013/14, as attached at Appendix A to the report, be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure the Council's continued compliance with CIPFA's code of practice on Treasury Management and the Local Government Act 2003 and that the Council manages its exposure to interest and capital risk. |
Agreed | ||
| 28 |
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING MONITORING OFFICER Report and Appendix The Council considered a report of the Corporate Legal Manager in respect of the proposed appointment of an Acting Monitoring Officer to cover this position during the Monitoring Officer's forthcoming period of maternity leave. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Monitoring Officer Functions (Extract from Constitution). It was moved by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, seconded by Councillor Judi Billing, and RESOLVED: (1) That the Council's right to appoint an Acting Monitoring Officer without requiring a recommendation of the Employment Committee be exercised; (2) That the Acting Corporate Legal Manager (Mr Anthony Roche) be designated as Acting Monitoring Officer from the commencement of the Corporate Legal Manager's maternity leave until the Corporate Legal Manager returns from maternity leave. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that the Authority complies with its statutory requirements. |
Agreed | ||
| 29 |
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS Report Community Development Officers In accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11(b), the following question had been submitted by Councillor Frank Radcliffe to Councillor Tony Hunter (Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs): "Labour Councillors are concerned that one of the Community Development Officer posts is being spread so thinly between the wide geographical areas of Hitchin and Letchworth and that it is in danger of becoming a post that is merely reactive and not pro-active. This is no reflection on the performance of the incumbent officer in any way, shape or form but reflects the way current austerity measures are used to rationalise the workforce and in doing so create a gap in the service for our constituents. The reduction in staff for this post results in the Community Development Officer not having the space or time to create and develop community initiatives. This also highlights the issues of who will cover the role in the case of long term sickness or annual leave and it also may leave the post holder isolated and unsupported in a role which is challenging, stressful and extremely busy. The Labour Group asks the Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement to inform us of what the Council's future plans are for the role of CDO and whether any of the Council's general funds can be utilised to hire another CDO to cover both areas with the incumbent officer?" In the absence of Councillor Hunter, Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham (Leader of the Council) replied that the restructure of the whole Policy and Community Services team was currently underway, with the 30 day staff consultation having commenced during the week commencing 21 July 2014, so this remained a ‘work in progress' before final arrangements were put into place in September. At present there were interim arrangements in place. This restructure was a management responsibility, and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment in detail with regard to individuals, given that consultation was underway. She would provide Members with an update on resources to area committees etc. Councillor Needham stated that the restructure broadly proposed that each area committee would receive the equivalent of 0.5 full time equivalent of a community officer in support, and that additionally they would be supported by the introduction of a new career graded, junior post, in order that NHDC could develop its own skills base; NHDC remained the only Hertfordshire District with area committees and a community development resource to support them. The team would need to be carefully managed, both in terms of expectations and workloads going forwards. Councillor Needham reminded Members that the Council had taken out considerable amounts of revenue funding, with a reduction of nearly £10million over the last 9 years. NHDC had focussed on protecting front line services and latest results showed that satisfaction with the Council's services had increased. NHDC have had to look at innovative ways of providing services, and changes of this type were part of that transition. |
Noted | ||
| 30 |
NOTICE OF MOTIONS Report There were no Notice of Motions. |
Noted | ||
| 31 |
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC RESOLVED: That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press 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 in Paragraphs 3 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act (as amended). |
Agreed | ||
| PART II | ||||
| 32 |
UPDATE ON CHURCHGATE AND SURROUNDING AREA, HITCHIN Data/Council/201407241930/Agenda/Report Data/Council/201407241930/Agenda/Appendix A The Council considered the Part 2 report of the Project Executive for the Churchgate Project Board (the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance) in respect of confidential and legally privileged information relevant to the Council's decision with regard to Churchgate and the surrounding area, Hitchin. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Covering letter from Hammersmatch and Hammersmatch's legal and financial proposal. It was moved by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, seconded by Councillor David Levett, and following debate and upon being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED: That the content of the report, and that external advice will be required to determine the Council's position in respect of any proposed developments, be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure Members have all relevant information in order to inform their decision. |
Noted | ||