The Resources and Performance Cabinet Panel met to discuss the proposed marketing of County Hall for alternative uses and the relocation of democratic meetings to the Stevenage Campus. The panel voted in favour of recommending to the cabinet that they agree to market the County Hall site for alternative uses, delegate approval of the detailed marketing strategy and materials, and approve the creation of a Council Chamber and Committee room at the Stevenage Campus.

County Hall and the Relocation of Democratic Meetings

The panel considered a report outlining proposals for the future of County Hall in Hertford and the relocation of democratic meetings to the Stevenage Campus.

The key points of the discussion were:

• Marketing of County Hall: The council has been marketing the County Hall site for employment use since September 2023, but there has been limited interest. The proposal is to market the entire site for alternative uses, including disposal for development. SAS Pleasure, Director for Property, told the panel that the new administration aims to relocate democratic meetings, including the council chamber, to the Stevenage campus, thus reducing the need to retain the space at County Hall.
• Assets of Community Value: The cricket pitch and woodland on the County Hall campus have been designated as assets of community value by East Hertford District Council. This means the County Council must follow formal processes as part of any sale.
• Relocation to Stevenage Campus: Creating a new Council Chamber and Committee Room at the Stevenage Campus requires a capital budget of £730,000 and a revenue budget of £61,000. This would be funded by borrowing in advance of the capital receipt received from the disposal of County Hall.
• Financial Implications: Retaining the front of County Hall would cost an estimated £10 million to split it from the remainder of the building, and would also incur ongoing revenue costs. Disposing of the entire site is expected to generate a substantial capital receipt and revenue savings. The council is obliged to get best consideration for the disposal under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972[^1]. [^1]: Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 requires local authorities to obtain the best consideration reasonably obtainable when disposing of land.
• Equality Impact Assessment: An Equalities Impact Assessment indicates that there are no negative implications in terms of relocating council meetings to the Stevenage Campus, and that there are benefits in terms of disability access and diversity inclusion.
• Sustainability: County Hall is a grade II listed building, and there are limited sustainability improvements that can be made to improve its carbon emissions.

Contributions from Councillors and the Public

Councillor Rachel Carter, representing Hertford St Andrews, expressed concerns about the loss of a democratic hub in Hertford and the need to ensure that any new owner respects the history and quality of the building. She also raised concerns about the impact on employment in the town.

Milena Nuti, Vice Chair of the Hertford Civic Society, said that the society had been under the impression that there were no concrete plans for the future of the site, and that they were dismayed to find that the plans were at such an advanced stage without awareness or scrutiny on the part of the committee, members or the general public. She urged members to scrutinise the officer proposals carefully and delay any decision until there is greater clarity about the shape, size and location of any unitary authorities¹ which may be about to take the place of current governance structures. Councillor Alexander Curtis raised questions about the £10 million cost of retaining the frontage, the cost of building a new council chamber in Stevenage, and the potential impact on the value of the site. He suggested that the front of the building could be a liability and that it could reduce the value of the site. He also suggested that the council should make more use of the building for events, such as weddings.

Councillor John Graham echoed Councillor Alexander Curtis's concerns about the potential liability of the front of the building and suggested that marketing the back of the building separately from the front may be the best option.

Councillor Chris Lloyd raised concerns about the archives and the impact of the marketing on the timeline for moving them. He also suggested that committee meetings should be moved to Stevenage regardless of what happens with the marketing of the site, as the building is uncomfortable and lacks air conditioning.

Councillor Tim Williams asked when the officers would reply to the questions that had been raised. He also asked whether filming and events would continue at the site, and whether the protection of the chamber, committee rooms and frontage was internal or external.

Dr Ben Crystall expressed concerns about the loss of a major facility in Hertford and urged the council to hold out for a mixed-use site without losing employment entirely. He also raised concerns about the new chamber at Stevenage and the need to ensure that it works properly.

Ian Albert sought assurances that the marketing would allow for a range of different options and that the council would work with the local community as part of the marketing. He also asked about the timeline for moving the archives and what would happen to the pictures in the building.

Councillor Penelope Hill noted that 4,500 staff have already been relocated to Stevenage and asked about the convenience of having meetings there for staff who are already based there. She also asked about the maintenance costs of the building.

Councillor Peter Taylor said that he was conscious that some members stood on a manifesto that said they would achieve changes in this area and that it is important to follow through on things that were promised prior to an election. He asked whether there was any indication of the size of any potential housing development on the site.

Richard Roberts said that he felt that the council had put the cart before the horses and that they should market the site with the opportunity to maintain a civic function.

Officer Responses

SAS Pleasure, Director for Property, said that the council had employed Savills, who are rated as one of the top three agents in the UK, to market the site. She said that they have proactively gone out to interested parties in the market, but that there is limited interest in taking on the site for employment uses. She said that the council is not just looking to market for residential use, but for any use, including commercial. She also said that the council has spoken to hoteliers in Hertfordshire, but that there is limited interest in the site because it does not have the grounds to support a hotel. She said that the £9.7 million cost of splitting the front part of the building from the rest of the building came from a full survey of the anticipated works. She agreed that the frontage is probably not the most valuable part of the whole campus, but that some of those who have been approached are interested in it because they would like to look at some sort of hybrid facility with access to community use. She said that the council is minded that whenever they are talking to interested parties, they stress upon them the important architectural and heritage nature of the asset. She also said that when the council has undertaken surveys with residents, they feel that the building does not represent modern democracy and does not represent the modern and diverse community in Hertfordshire.

Scott Crudgington, Director for Resources, said that the council had already received a decision to market the site, but only in relation to the rear of the site, not the grade II listed part. He said that the focus of the conversation was to include the whole site in the marketing. He said that the council does not yet know what that marketing will bring and that unless they understand what the market is interested in, it is very difficult for them to evaluate and then bring forward options for what next. He said that there may well be that the market does not come back with an acceptable solution to the council, or that it comes back with some very innovative ideas and suggestions that the council can consider and bring forward to members. He said that there can be other criteria that the council can include within the evaluation of those bids that come in, such as making sure that the council gets good value for all taxpayers in Hertfordshire. He said that the council continues to attract attention from the film and TV industry and that this drives an income stream for the council. He said that the council is keen to keep its door open to allow study space for people to still come and use and get access to documents etc that they wish to review and study. He said that the council really wants to make sure that the views of the community are understood, but equally that they can get a chance to explain the challenges and constraints that they are under as a set of officers to be able to balance the books, be able to look after assets in the right way, but also be able to deliver the operations that the council clearly wants them to with the money that is available. He said that the chair has set up a working group in relation to the move to a new chamber, which all parties have been invited to give representation to.

Voting

The panel voted in favour of recommending to the cabinet that they agree to market the County Hall site for alternative uses, delegate approval of the detailed marketing strategy and materials, and approve the creation of a Council Chamber and Committee room at the Stevenage Campus. Seven councillors voted in favour, three against, and one abstained.