Agenda, decisions and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting of the council.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 2020 were agreed by the members present and will be signed by the Mayor at the next available opportunity.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 2020 were agreed by the members present and will be signed by the Mayor at the next available opportunity.

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider questions (if any) by members of the public of which the appropriate notice has been given to the Assistant Director (Corporate and Contracted Services).

Questions from Graham Bright (Grove Fields Residents Association) to Councillor G Sutton:

Q1: "There was a lockdown when DBC voted to commence the public consultation and there is currently a lockdown. This alone is a good enough reason to postpone or at the very least extend the end date of the public consultation until a date when the lockdown is lifted and the public can properly engage with the consultation. There is a complete lack of awareness in Tring that there is an ongoing public consultation. I have not received anything through my door about how to engage with the consultation. There are many people in Tring who are now shielding, and engaging with the consultation does not fit within the government's definition of 'essential travel', therefore, the only way to engage is online. Many members of the public in Tring do not have access to the devices, Wi-Fi or the technical know-how to engage online. The current date of the 7th February, does not allow enough time for a fair or equitable access to the public consultation and DBC is opening itself up to judicial challenge.

In addition, on the 16 December the government published its response to the local housing need proposals on the consultation on changes to the current planning system. This sets out important changes to the standard method which has been amended so that the 20 most populated cities and urban centres in England (none of which are in Dacorum) see their need uplifted by 35%.

Government also said "More broadly, we heard suggestions in the consultation that in some places the numbers produced by the standard method pose a risk to protected landscapes and Green Belt. We (Government) should be clear that meeting housing need is never a reason to cause unacceptable harm to such places." and they went on to say "Within the current planning system the standard method does not present a ‘target’ in plan-making, but instead provides a starting point for determining the level of need for the area, and it is only after consideration of this, alongside what constraints areas face, such as the Green Belt, and the land that is actually available for development, that the decision on how many homes should be planned for is made. It does not override other planning policies, including the protections set out in Paragraph 11b of the NPPF or our strong protections for the Green Belt.

Therefore, there is no logic why DBC should slavishly pursue a plan to build on so much green belt when they should  develop a plan based upon 'need' rather than using the standard method figure as a target that must be achieved at all costs.

Therefore my question is, can DBC either:

1. Extend the end date of the public consultation until 10 weeks after the current lockdown, or
2. Cancel the public consultation and rewrite the plan in line with the latest central Government guidance?"

Response:The Council took the decision to extend the consultation  ...  view the full decision text for item 3.

Questions from Graham Bright (Grove Fields Residents Association) to Councillor G Sutton:

Q1: "There was a lockdown when DBC voted to commence the public consultation and there is currently a lockdown. This alone is a good enough reason to postpone or at the very least extend the end date of the public consultation until a date when the lockdown is lifted and the public can properly engage with the consultation. There is a complete lack of awareness in Tring that there is an ongoing public consultation. I have not received anything through my door about how to engage with the consultation. There are many people in Tring who are now shielding, and engaging with the consultation does not fit within the government's definition of 'essential travel', therefore, the only way to engage is online. Many members of the public in Tring do not have access to the devices, Wi-Fi or the technical know-how to engage online. The current date of the 7th February, does not allow enough time for a fair or equitable access to the public consultation and DBC is opening itself up to judicial challenge.

In addition, on the 16 December the government published its response to the local housing need proposals on the consultation on changes to the current planning system. This sets out important changes to the standard method which has been amended so that the 20 most populated cities and urban centres in England (none of which are in Dacorum) see their need uplifted by 35%.

Government also said "More broadly, we heard suggestions in the consultation that in some places the numbers produced by the standard method pose a risk to protected landscapes and Green Belt. We (Government) should be clear that meeting housing need is never a reason to cause unacceptable harm to such places." and they went on to say "Within the current planning system the standard method does not present a ‘target’ in plan-making, but instead provides a starting point for determining the level of need for the area, and it is only after consideration of this, alongside what constraints areas face, such as the Green Belt, and the land that is actually available for development, that the decision on how many homes should be planned for is made. It does not override other planning policies, including the protections set out in Paragraph 11b of the NPPF or our strong protections for the Green Belt.

Therefore, there is no logic why DBC should slavishly pursue a plan to build on so much green belt when they should  develop a plan based upon 'need' rather than using the standard method figure as a target that must be achieved at all costs.

Therefore my question is, can DBC either:

1. Extend the end date of the public consultation until 10 weeks after the current lockdown, or
2. Cancel the public consultation and rewrite the plan in line with the latest central Government guidance?"

Response:The Council took the decision to extend the consultation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To receive announcements and business brought forward by the Mayor, Leader, and Members of the Cabinet or the Chief Executive.

4.1       By the Mayor:

4.2       By the Chief Executive:

4.3       By the Group Leaders:  Any apologies for absence

4.4       Council Leader and Members of the Cabinet:

Councillor Williams                 Leader of the Council

Councillor Banks                     Community and Regulatory Services

Councillor G Sutton                Planning and Infrastructure

Councillor Elliot                       Finance and Resources

Councillor Griffiths                  Housing

Councillor Williams                 Corporate and Contracted Services

Councillor Anderson               Environmental Services

4.1       By the Mayor:

None.

4.2       By the Chief Executive:

None.

4.3       By the Group Leaders:

Councillor Williams gave apologies on behalf of Councillors Imarni and Oguchi.

Councillor Tindall gave apologies on behalf of Councillor Link.

4.4       Council Leader and Members of the Cabinet:

(Full details are in the minutes under Announcements of the Leader and Cabinet).

4.1       By the Mayor:

None.

4.2       By the Chief Executive:

None.

4.3       By the Group Leaders:

Councillor Williams gave apologies on behalf of Councillors Imarni and Oguchi. 

Councillor Tindall gave apologies on behalf of Councillor Link.

4.4       Council Leader and Members of the Cabinet:

Councillor Williams, Leader of the Council

The Leader presented his update as follows:

Since the last meeting in November I think national news has been dominated by two particular items; one obviously being Covid, being primarily the one that’s on most people’s minds and prior to the start of the new year to cut the country’s position and negotiations around Brexit.

Locally there has been discussion around the local plan but I think it’s being covered in other parts of this evenings agendas so I wanted to take this opportunity to update members and colleagues on some of the actions the councils taking in relation to dealing with issues in the last few weeks as the Covid situation has worsened both locally and nationally. My report was drafted a couple of days ago but up to then we had a total of 5854 cases of confirmed Covid within Dacorum with 703 on those occurring in the last seven days between 1^st and 7^th January. Because it takes time for tests to be processed the figures for the more recent days are provisional, the indication is that the test figures are proving to be relatively high. We know both locally and nationally that some of the significant areas of infection are schools and supermarkets, and locally we’ve had a significant outbreak at The Mount prison which have been recorded and Hertfordshire Public Health have been carrying out testing there in order to determine the number of people who are actually infected there and to help the prison service with isolating and dealing with those issues. More locally I just want to run through some of the aspects of the council’s response and our involvement with assisting other colleagues in dealing with issues as they arise. The council is fully involved with our IMT (incident management team) in dealing with issues locally. We are represented on various tactical meetings across the county so we are aware of issues as they’re arising. The councils track and trace service is due to be up and running by the 18^th January and we have recruited two of the three staff members required to run this service locally. Colleagues won’t be surprised to hear that one of the main areas of pressure within the council is on our Environmental Health staff who have been taking on and dealing with a significant workload in relation to enforcing various Covid restrictions, visiting supermarkets and other outlets to ensure that we are Covid compliant of mask wearing and rules are being enforced. I’m pleased to say the results to date have been encouraging with higher levels of compliance, and there will be a rolling programme of enforcement visits to supermarkets which I  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

A motion was proposed by Councillor England and seconded by Councillor Uttley. An amendment to the motion was proposed by Councillor Williams and seconded by Councillor Griffiths which was accepted by Councillor England. Therefore, the substantive motion proposed (as amended) was as follows:

1.  This Council notes that there are 7859 applications on the Dacorum Housing Register, either waiting for a transfer to housing appropriate for their needs or waiting for the opportunity to be housed by the Council or other registered social housing providers.

2.  Since 2013, this Council has committed to building new homes for social rent, 300 being provided by the Council itself, working with Housing Associations and others to supplement that figure.

3.  While welcoming the progress made, the Council notes that we will be given a target by MHCLG to provide opportunities in the new Local Plan for the building of over 16,000 homes in Dacorum over the next 18 years.

4.  This Council further notes that at current market rates, few of those proposed homes will be affordable by those on the Council’s Housing Register, even if a full discount is applied, given the proposed local plan suggests that genuinely affordable’ means substantially more than a 20% discount.

5.  Therefore this Council commits to build on the positive work of previous years and continue work directly to develop homes for social rent and to seek further opportunities with partner registered providers to accelerate the delivery of new social rent homes.

6.  The Council requests that as work progresses on the development of the draft local plan the task and finish group should look at the targets and definitions of affordable housing with a view to planning a greater proportion of social rent homes, which should be quantified as at least a range of feasible targets.

A vote was held:

43 for,

0 against,

0 abstentions,

Therefore the motion was carried.

Councillor England proposed the motion constructively and having discussed it with Councillor Williams he welcomed a measure of consensus alongside the sometimes different creativity of their wider debates. This council can make clear its commitment to existing Borough residents and voters who are on the housing register or will need to be during the next 18 years. This 16,000 homes or a rationalised locally justified version of that number, if we get that far, is a one off opportunity to build social homes and bring on Dacorum progress through balance and stability of having proper housing for people. This number is large and he doesn’t think this opportunity will come again. He was particularly uncomfortable with the local planning consultation being a bit blank on this quantifiable as a component of the overall number, and was as impatient as everyone to see a significant step up in gearing local housing towards reducing overcrowding. He knew that there was some similar feelings on the Conservative side as well, and accepted the difficulty that members will have with making an ambitious commitment such as is actually in the motion without first seeing the financial plan.  That was the reason for point 6 which was to create a financial plan so that when we complete our local plan we’re talking about something deliverable. Obviously there was the possibility of an amendment which may deal with that in a different way.

He said the town of Hemel in particular has a great history in social housing for people and we should all be proud of that. He commended the officer’s work which has gone into this strategy and he brought this motion as a constructive contribution because he felt it was important to have a quantifiable goal of producing more social housing at an expanded level from what we’re doing at the moment.

After working through the consultation information to try and help signpost various residents and encourage them to follow through and make a comment it became apparent that the evidence of progress to the crucial goal of supporting health, wellbeing and cohesion of the community, which he saw as the most important goal of all, is that must depend on being able to say by what extent the overcrowding and mismatched housing circumstances of thousands of current residents, how that would be sought. A lot of homes are going to be built and what he was saying was if we go through this and don’t build enough social housing, we would have created an unsolvable problem for ourselves. There is a need to define what we mean by affordable and he was gratified that this aspect of the consultation was likely to receive some study as a product of perhaps an amendment. The South West Herts local housing needs assessment say that Dacorum needs 363 affordable homes by a technical definition. It also says on page 7 that 87% of these will only be affordable if they’re at social rent, properly affordable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider questions (if any) by members of the Council of which the appropriate notice has been given to the Assistant Director (Corporate and Contracted Services).

Questions from Councillor Pringle to Councillor Williams:

Q1. Does the Leader of the Council support me in calling for HCC to publish the aggregate statistics of the prevalence of CV19 in Dacorum schools and across the county, given that, as we enter another lockdown, with a new variant of CV19 and R-rate currently out of control, it is more important than ever that our local residents and businesses have a full understanding of the prevalence of CV19 in our communities.

Response: No, I don’t support that. Hertfordshire County Council have released considerable amounts of information through various mechanisms and have enabled people to see infection rates almost on a ward-by-ward basis. In relation to schools, I trust that HCC have released what they feel is appropriate and I do not support the call to ask them to release further information.

Q2. I completely understand and appreciate Councillor Williams’ points about releasing information that could identify individuals, however does the portfolio holder not agree that as we have seen the highest of death rates today it is incredibly important that residents are fully aware of the extent of this virus in every community. Just over a week ago parents were told schools were safe and parents I know relied on that information. I am aware that parents have a misconception about the rates in Hertfordshire schools. Buckinghamshire is doing aggregate numbers, I’ve seen the correspondence and I only ask that we take similarly responsible steps to represent the fundamental needs of our residents to be kept safe.

Response: I can only reiterate what I have already said, I do believe HCC are publishing the information through its educational public health route or through more national bodies. The information is out there and I think given that the majority of schools are now closed beyond the February half term the information for school settings is clear. It is not relevant because for the majority of parents their children are off school for the foreseeable future and their return will be a decision based on infection rates and how things can be controlled. It will be a very different scenario when parents need to consider their options towards the end of February and I think we would need to look at the national picture in light of the situation at that time.

Q3. Does Councillor Williams agree that when we see waves they come in curves and given that this will not go away overnight, I can foresee into the future beyond half term and it is when the students go back to school that we will desperately need this granulated school by school aggregate information. Would he support me in trying to get that information for parents so that they can make informed decisions about the safety of their children? This is not just their right but their duty to exercise parental responsibility.

Response: I think I have already made my position perfectly clear in that similar line of questioning  ...  view the full decision text for item 6.

Questions from Councillor Pringle to Councillor Williams:

Q1. Does the Leader of the Council support me in calling for HCC to publish the aggregate statistics of the prevalence of CV19 in Dacorum schools and across the county, given that, as we enter another lockdown, with a new variant of CV19 and R-rate currently out of control, it is more important than ever that our local residents and businesses have a full understanding of the prevalence of CV19 in our communities.

Response: No, I don’t support that. Hertfordshire County Council have released considerable amounts of information through various mechanisms and have enabled people to see infection rates almost on a ward-by-ward basis. In relation to schools, I trust that HCC have released what they feel is appropriate and I do not support the call to ask them to release further information.

Q2. I completely understand and appreciate Councillor Williams’ points about releasing information that could identify individuals, however does the portfolio holder not agree that as we have seen the highest of death rates today it is incredibly important that residents are fully aware of the extent of this virus in every community. Just over a week ago parents were told schools were safe and parents I know relied on that information. I am aware that parents have a misconception about the rates in Hertfordshire schools. Buckinghamshire is doing aggregate numbers, I’ve seen the correspondence and I only ask that we take similarly responsible steps to represent the fundamental needs of our residents to be kept safe.

Response: I can only reiterate what I have already said, I do believe HCC are publishing the information through its educational public health route or through more national bodies. The information is out there and I think given that the majority of schools are now closed beyond the February half term the information for school settings is clear. It is not relevant because for the majority of parents their children are off school for the foreseeable future and their return will be a decision based on infection rates and how things can be controlled. It will be a very different scenario when parents need to consider their options towards the end of February and I think we would need to look at the national picture in light of the situation at that time.

Q3. Does Councillor Williams agree that when we see waves they come in curves and given that this will not go away overnight, I can foresee into the future beyond half term and it is when the students go back to school that we will desperately need this granulated school by school aggregate information. Would he support me in trying to get that information for parents so that they can make informed decisions about the safety of their children? This is not just their right but their duty to exercise parental responsibility.

Response: I think I have already made my position perfectly clear in that similar line of questioning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider any business referred from the previous meeting.

 None.

 None.

To consider the following referrals from Cabinet:

8.1  CA/101/20            24 November 2020     Budget Monitoring Q2

8.2  CA/102/20            24 November 2020     Covid-19 Impact Report

8.3  CA/112/20            15 December 2020     Treasury Management Mid-Year Performance Report

8.4  CA/113/20            15 December 2020     Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy

8.5  CA/115/20            15 December 2020     Committee Timetable 2021/22          

Resolved:

That the following be approved:

24 November 2020

8.1  CA/101/20            Budget Monitoring Q2

Decision

That the budget monitoring position for each of the above accounts be considered and:

1.   The approval of the revised capital programme to move £2.409m slippage identified at Quarter 2 into financial year 2021/22 as detailed in Appendix C.

2.   The approval of supplementary revenue budgets as follows:

·         Supplementary budget of £300k in the Local Development Framework (LDF) budget to fund the costs of producing the Local Plan, to be funded from the LDF reserve.

·         Supplementary budget of £30k in the Waste Development employee’s budget to fund a Recycling Officer post, to be funded from the Management of Change reserve.

3.   The approval of supplementary capital budgets as follows:

·         Additional capital budget of £180k in the Commercial Assets and Property Development budget to fund the costs of completion of the new Bunkers Farm cemetery, to be funded from a contribution from West Herts Crematorium Joint Committee.

·         Additional capital budget of £210k in the Leisure service to fund a Multi-Use Games Area at The Hemel Hempstead School.

·         Additional capital budget of £70k to fund audio-visual improvement works at The Forum.

8.2  CA/102/20            Covid-19 Impact Report

Decision

The approval of £76,000 (over two years) additional funding for Citizens Advice Dacorum.

15 December 2020

8.3  CA/112/20           Treasury Management Mid-Year Performance Report

Decision

The acceptance of the Cabinet report on mid-year treasury management performance and prudential indicators for 2020/21.

8.4  CA/113/20            Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy

Decision

1        That the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism be adopted as set out in the report and the illustrative examples that are presented alongside.

2.     That the new post for a Diversity and Community Inclusion Officer be included as   part of the 2021/22 budget as set out in section 5 of this report.

8.5  CA/115/20            Committee Timetable 2021/22

Decision

The approval of the Meeting Timetable for 2021/22 as set out in Appendix A to the Cabinet report.

Resolved:

That the following be approved:

24 November 2020

8.1  CA/101/20            Budget Monitoring Q2

Decision

That the budget monitoring position for each of the above accounts be considered and:

1.   The approval of the revised capital programme to move £2.409m slippage identified at Quarter 2 into financial year 2021/22 as detailed in Appendix C.

2.   The approval of supplementary revenue budgets as follows:

·         Supplementary budget of £300k in the Local Development Framework (LDF) budget to fund the costs of producing the Local Plan, to be funded from the LDF reserve.

·         Supplementary budget of £30k in the Waste Development employee’s budget to fund a Recycling Officer post, to be funded from the Management of Change reserve.

3.   The approval of supplementary capital budgets as follows:

·         Additional capital budget of £180k in the Commercial Assets and Property Development budget to fund the costs of completion of the new Bunkers Farm cemetery, to be funded from a contribution from West Herts Crematorium Joint Committee.

·         Additional capital budget of £210k in the Leisure service to fund a Multi-Use Games Area at The Hemel Hempstead School.

·         Additional capital budget of £70k to fund audio-visual improvement works at The Forum.

8.2  CA/102/20            Covid-19 Impact Report

Decision

The approval of £76,000 (over two years) additional funding for Citizens Advice Dacorum.

15 December 2020

8.3  CA/112/20           Treasury Management Mid-Year Performance Report

Decision

The acceptance of the Cabinet report on mid-year treasury management performance and prudential indicators for 2020/21.

8.4  CA/113/20            Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy

Decision

1        That the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism be adopted as set out in the report and the illustrative examples that are presented alongside.

2.     That the new post for a Diversity and Community Inclusion Officer be included as   part of the 2021/22 budget as set out in section 5 of this report.

8.5  CA/115/20            Committee Timetable 2021/22

Decision

The approval of the Meeting Timetable for 2021/22 as set out in Appendix A to the Cabinet report.

None.

None.

None.

To consider any proposals for changes to committee membership.

None.

None.

To consider any proposals for changes to committee dates.

None.

None.

The Council noted the following urgent Portfolio Holder Decisions:

Ø  PH/025/20 - Additional Restrictions Grant – Covid-19 Support for Local Businesses

Ø  PH/001/21 - Local Restrictions Support Grant (Open) (LRSG (Open)) – Covid-19 Support for Local Businesses

The Council noted the following urgent Portfolio Holder Decisions:

Ø  PH/025/20 - Additional Restrictions Grant – Covid-19 Support for Local Businesses

Ø  PH/001/21 - Local Restrictions Support Grant (Open) (LRSG (Open)) – Covid-19 Support for Local Businesses