The Resources and Performance Cabinet Panel met on Wednesday 15 April 2026 to discuss a range of important issues, including plans for new school places in the Gilston Garden Community, the future of several council-owned properties, and the council's strategic asset management plan. Key decisions included approving capital budgets for new primary schools in Gilston and agreeing to declare the former Bill Everett Centre and land at Highfield Farm surplus to requirements for disposal.

New School Places for Gilston Garden Community

The panel received an update on plans to ensure sufficient education infrastructure for the new Gilston Garden Community, which is set to deliver up to 10,000 new homes. Outline planning consent was granted in January 2025, and a Section 106 agreement secures land and funding for new primary and secondary school sites. The council is adopting a flexible approach to school delivery, with decisions on when and how many places are needed informed by an education review group. The aim is to have primary schools ready from the first September following the first home occupations.

The panel approved a capital budget of £18.53 million for a three-form entry primary school in Village 1, with funding potentially coming from the Housing Infrastructure Grant (HIG) or Section 106 contributions. A similar budget was approved for a primary school in Village 7, funded by Section 106 contributions. Authority was delegated to the Executive Director of Children's Services to agree final contract values. Councillor Ben Crystall raised concerns about the potential loss of a 10% sustainability uplift on school funding, but officers confirmed this was embedded in the Section 106 agreement and developers were obligated to fund it. Councillor Alexander Curtis expressed concern about the potential for a significant gap between the council's efforts to provide school places and the Secretary of State's decisions, leading to a request for the portfolio holder for education to write to the Secretary of State to highlight the importance of timely school provision.

Future of Council Properties

Highfield Farm, Tyttenhanger: The panel recommended that Cabinet agree to declare the land at Highfield Farm, comprising former agricultural buildings and associated land, as surplus to requirements and available for disposal. The site has been vacant since 2019 and has no potential to support council services. A planning application has been submitted to St Albans District Council for the conversion of the buildings to residential dwellings, which could contribute to local housing needs. Disposal would generate a capital receipt. Councillor Richard Roberts fully supported the disposal, noting that the site had been identified as surplus in 2019.

Former Bill Everett Centre, Watford: The panel recommended that Cabinet agree to declare the former Bill Everett Centre in Watford surplus to requirements and available for disposal. The site, which was formerly a sports and community centre, has been vacant since 2009 and was demolished in 2014. It has since been held as a reserve primary school site, but recent engagement with education colleagues confirmed no anticipated requirement for this purpose, and the site is considered too small for a two-form entry primary school. Disposal would generate a capital receipt and provide much-needed housing, subject to planning and agreement with Watford Borough Council regarding historic land interests. Councillors Tim Williams, Penelope Hill, and Peter Taylor declared interests as executive members at Watford Borough Council and did not participate in the discussion or vote. Councillor Richard Roberts supported the proposal, suggesting more Watford councillors should be on the panel. Councillor Ian Albert sought clarification on the likelihood of agreement with Watford Borough Council regarding the disposal and the process for changing the site's local plan allocation from education to residential. Officers confirmed they had engaged with Watford's planning department and were confident in making the case for redevelopment.

Land at Chequersfield, Welwyn Garden City: The panel noted the proposed terms for the sale of land at Chequersfield, which is affected by significant historic landfill contamination. The council has provisionally agreed terms to sell the site unconditionally to VolkerWessels, a specialist in land remediation, who will take full responsibility for remediation. This disposal is expected to generate a capital receipt and ensure the safe remediation of the site. Councillor Mark Biddle raised concerns about the potential impact of future development on local residents, including traffic flow, air quality, and noise pollution. Officers advised that these issues would be managed through the planning system and enforced by district and borough councils. The panel agreed that the full panel's support for Councillor Biddle's points should be noted and considered by the estates team during disposal.

Future of Secure Tenancies

The panel considered the future approach to the council's non-operational secure tenancy portfolio, which comprises 35 properties. These properties arose from historical staff housing arrangements and are not used for service delivery. Previous decisions have supported the closure of the residential staff housing pool. Retaining these properties would require substantial capital investment for compliance, climate change adaptation, and future legislative changes, leading to a negative return and diverting resources from frontline priorities. Extensive tenant engagement indicated broad support for a transfer to another provider, subject to safeguards. Disposal would generate a capital receipt, reduce ongoing revenue liabilities, and allow the council to focus on its core property assets. Councillor Alexander Curtis questioned why the council was offloading property and sacrificing potential long-term revenue income, particularly ahead of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). Officers explained the financial pressures facing the council and the need to dispose of assets no longer fit for purpose. Councillor Mark Biddle raised concerns about contradictions in the equality impact assessment, while Councillor Ian Albert sought clarification on the range of providers being considered and the impact of the Renters' Rights Act. Councillor Tim Williams supported the disposal, highlighting the council's lack of expertise as a housing authority and the potential for best value to be achieved through external providers. The recommendation to delegate authority for agreeing disposal terms was agreed.

Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) 2025-2029

The panel reviewed the proposed Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) for 2025-2029, which sets out how Hertfordshire County Council will manage, optimise, and invest in its land and property assets to support corporate plan priorities. The plan introduces five strategic objectives: Service Delivery Enablement, Financial Sustainability & Commercial Value, Economic Growth & Housing Delivery, Climate & Environmental Responsibility, and People & Workplace Excellence. Councillor Alexander Curtis raised concerns about the suitability of existing council chambers for potential future unitary authorities post-LGR, suggesting County Hall might need to be retained. Officers acknowledged the speculation surrounding LGR but stated that provision could be made for meeting spaces. Councillor Mark Biddle questioned the fallback plan if the SAMP's assumptions did not hold, to which officers responded that the plan included an active work plan that would be monitored and amended as needed. Councillor Richard Roberts expressed support for the SAMP's aspirational nature but voiced concerns about the achievability of some targets, particularly regarding supported living accommodation and the Joint Emergency Services Project (JESA). Councillor England, as Executive Member for Sustainability, welcomed the integration of sustainability goals. The panel recommended that Cabinet review and approve the implementation of the SAMP.

Hertfordshire County Council Performance Monitor – Quarter 3 2025-26

The panel received an update on the council's performance for the third quarter of the financial year 2025-26. The report, which follows recommendations from a cross-party task and finish group, provides an overview of 40 deliverables in the corporate plan, along with snapshots of key priorities and corporate risks. Councillor Matthew Hurst raised concerns about the accessibility of online tools for requesting carer's assessments. Councillor Mark Biddle questioned mitigation actions for SEND improvement targets, and Councillor Alexander Curtis used a humorous analogy to highlight concerns about road conditions and the state of highways maintenance. Councillor Richard Roberts praised the improved format of the performance reports, acknowledging the work of officers and the cross-party group. The panel noted the report and requested that Cabinet approve the metrics and approach outlined.

Hertfordshire County Council Resources Management Board Performance Monitor – Quarter 3 2025-26

This report provided performance metrics for the Resources Directorate. Key indicators included sickness absence, headcount, agency spend, and payroll costs. Councillor Mark Biddle inquired about practices shared to reduce sickness absence and directorates overspending on agency staff. Officers explained that while Resources had low sickness levels, the trend was increasing, and they were exploring more personal approaches to managing absence. Agency spend was higher in legal and technology departments due to recruitment challenges. Councillor Ian Albert asked for a breakdown of sickness levels by directorate, and Councillor Curtis suggested tracking time spent in virtual meetings as a potential productivity measure. Officers agreed to discuss the sentiment behind this suggestion strategically rather than implementing a formal metric. The panel noted the report.

Compliments and Complaints Report 2024-2025

The panel received the annual report on compliments and complaints for Children's Services (CS) and other council services. Compliments increased by 8% overall, with a significant rise in Children's Services. Stage 1 complaints increased by 12% across the council, with notable rises in Adult Care Services and Libraries and Heritage. Stage 2 complaints saw a slight increase. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) dealt with 169 complaints, investigating 69, with 94% of those investigated finding fault. Councillor Mark Biddle sought information on the SEND resolution team and ongoing updates. Councillor John Graham noted the increase in compliments, particularly in Children's Services, and expressed interest in future performance. Councillor Ian Albert suggested benchmarking complaint data against comparable councils. Councillor England and Councillor Roberts also contributed to the discussion. The panel noted the report.

Response to Motion: Council Tax Collection and Support Schemes

The panel considered a motion from Councillor Richard Roberts and Councillor John Graham regarding a drop in Council Tax collection rates and inconsistencies in Council Tax Support (CTS) schemes across Hertfordshire. Officers outlined the statutory responsibilities, clarifying that districts and boroughs are responsible for council tax billing, collection, and CTS schemes, not the county council. While the county council cannot mandate changes, it engages through partnership forums to support collaborative work. Councillor Richard Roberts highlighted a significant drop in Hertsmere's taxbase and the overall £69 million impact of CTS across the county. Officers clarified that CTS is a government scheme that discounts the potential council tax yield. Councillor John Graham questioned the degree of discretion local boroughs have in applying CTS schemes and the council's role in influencing them. Councillors Alexander Curtis and Ian Albert also contributed to the discussion, with officers agreeing to explore providing comparative data on CTS schemes across districts. The panel considered the response to the motion.

The meeting concluded with the panel noting the report on compliments and complaints and considering the response to the motion on Council Tax collection and support schemes. The next meeting was scheduled for 2nd June 2026.