The Resources and Performance Cabinet Panel met on Wednesday 15 April 2026 to discuss a range of important issues, including the delivery of new school places for the Gilston development, the future of several council-owned properties, and the adoption of a new 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 in Watford and land at Highfield Farm surplus to requirements for disposal.

New School Places for Gilston Development

The panel discussed plans for delivering new school places to support the significant new Gilston Garden community development, which aims to provide up to 10,000 new homes. Kate Leahy and Kate Ma presented the update, highlighting the need for new on-site primary provision from day one of occupation. The Section 106 agreement secures land and funding for up to seven primary school sites. The council is planning for flexibility, with the first primary school potentially located in either Village 1 or Village 7, depending on developer timelines. The panel recommended to Cabinet the approval of capital budgets for both Village 1 and Village 7 primary schools, totalling approximately £37 million, to be funded through Section 106 contributions and potentially the Housing Investment Grant. Delegated authority was also recommended for agreeing final contract values. Councillor Ben Crystall raised a question about the sustainability uplift funding, which was confirmed to be embedded within the Section 106 agreement and funded by developers. Councillor Alexander Curtis expressed concern about the potential for a gap between home occupations and school opening, and the strain on existing schools. The panel agreed to ask the portfolio holder for education to write to the Secretary of State to highlight the importance of timely school provision.

Future of Council Properties

Several council-owned properties were discussed, with recommendations for disposal.

Highfield Farm, Tyttenhanger

The panel considered proposals for the future of land at Highfield Farm, Tyttenhanger, which comprises former agricultural buildings and associated land. The site has been vacant and held for planning purposes since 2019. A planning application has been submitted to St Albans District Council for the conversion of the buildings to residential dwellings. The panel recommended to Cabinet that the land be declared surplus to requirements and available for disposal. Councillor Richard Roberts fully supported the disposal, noting that the administration's budget aimed to dispose of unneeded assets.

Former Bill Everett Centre, Watford

The future of the former Bill Everett Centre in Watford was discussed. The site has been vacant for several years and was previously used as a sports and community centre. 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 of entry primary school. The panel recommended to Cabinet that the centre be declared surplus to requirements and available for disposal, with potential for redevelopment for housing, subject to planning and engagement with Watford Borough Council. 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 Ian Albert sought clarification on the likelihood of Watford Borough Council agreeing to the disposal, given its current allocation as an education site in the local plan. Officers expressed confidence that evidence would persuade Watford Borough Council of the site's suitability for housing.

Chequersfield, Welwyn Garden City

The panel received an overview of the proposed terms for the sale of land at Chequersfield, Welwyn Garden City. The site is affected by significant historic landfill contamination, with estimated remediation costs of circa £20 million. Terms have been provisionally agreed with VolkerWessels, a specialist in land remediation, to sell the site unconditionally. The council's residual liability will remain but is anticipated to dissipate over time, with insurance lined up for this risk. The panel was asked to note the disposal, which represents an opportunity for safe remediation and a capital receipt for the council. Councillor Mark Biddle raised concerns about the potential impact on local residents regarding traffic flow, air quality, and noise pollution, suggesting these be incorporated into the terms of disposal. Officers advised that these issues would be best managed through the planning system, and that air quality and noise monitoring enforcement is carried out by district and borough councils. The panel agreed that the points raised by Councillor Biddle would be noted in the minutes and considered by the estates team during disposal.

Future of Secure Tenancies

The panel considered the future approach to the County 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. Retaining them would require substantial capital investment and result in a negative return, diverting resources from statutory priorities. Extensive tenant engagement has shown broad support for transferring to another provider, subject to safeguards. The disposal would generate a capital receipt, reduce ongoing revenue liabilities, and allow the council to focus on its core property assets. Councillor Alexander Curtis raised concerns about sacrificing potential long-term revenue income for short-term capital receipts, and questioned why these properties were being offloaded ahead of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). Officers explained that registered providers have economies of scale and can manage costs more effectively, and that the council is facing significant financial deficits. Councillor Mark Biddle questioned the reconciliation of positive equality impact assessment scores with unresolved risks. Sass Pledger, Director of Property, clarified that there were no red risks and that amber risks would be addressed through consultation. Councillor Ian Albert supported the paper but sought clarification on the range of providers being considered and whether the new Renters' Rights Act impacted the tenancies. Sass Pledger confirmed that the council was seeking housing providers primarily but would market more widely for best consideration, and that secure tenants have protected status. Councillor John Graham supported the paper, highlighting the historical context of the tenancies and the potential financial liability if retained. Councillor Tim Williams agreed, stating that the council is not a housing authority and it is best to go to specialist organisations. The panel recommended to Cabinet that authority be delegated to agree the terms of the disposal.

Approval of the Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) 2025-2029

The panel considered the new Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) 2025-2029, which sets out how Hertfordshire County Council will manage, optimise, and invest in its land and property assets to support corporate plan delivery and council priorities. The plan outlines 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 potential impact of LGR on meeting spaces, suggesting County Hall might need to be retained. The Chair acknowledged the speculation surrounding LGR but stated that provision could be made. Councillor Mark Biddle questioned the fallback plan if the SAMP's assumptions did not hold. Officers confirmed that the plan includes an action plan that will be monitored, and that backup would involve traditional savings and alternative service delivery methods. Councillor John Graham commented that the SAMP aligned with the revised corporate plan, and Councillor Ian Albert welcomed the plan's urgency and focus on making best use of assets. Councillor Dr Ben Crystall questioned the sustainability of the capital receipt targets and the implications for listed buildings. Sass Pledger explained the ambitious targets were based on accelerated asset reviews and that listed buildings presented challenges regarding energy efficiency and accessibility. 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 deliverable plan, a snapshot deck of key priorities, and a summary of 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 their impact. Councillor Alexander Curtis used a humorous analogy to highlight concerns about the state of roads and the cancellation of Highways Cabinet Panel meetings. Councillor England commented on the council's sustainability strategy. Councillor Richard Roberts praised the improved format of the reports and the work of the cross-party group. The panel noted the report and requested Cabinet approve the metrics and approach outlined.

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

This report provided performance metrics related to infrastructure and corporate-wide measurements for the Resources Directorate. Two metrics were flagged as amber: workforce headcount numbers, indicating an area of focus for the executive board, and response times to freedom of information requests, which had fallen below the target of 90% due to increased volume and complexity. Councillor Mark Biddle inquired about practices shared to reduce sickness absence and overspending directorates on agency staff. Scott Crudgington, Head of Corporate Finance, explained that while Resources had the lowest sickness levels, the trend was increasing, and the council was moving back to a more personal approach to managing sickness. Agency spend was higher in hard-to-recruit areas like legal and technology. Councillor Ian Albert asked for a breakdown of sickness levels by directorate, which officers agreed to provide. Councillor Alexander Curtis suggested a metric for time spent in virtual meetings. Scott Crudgington acknowledged the sentiment but advised against a formal metric due to data quality concerns, proposing instead to discuss meeting culture strategically. The panel noted the report.

Compliments and Complaints Report 2024-2025

Victoria Wilders presented the annual report on compliments and complaints. Compliments had increased by 8% to 2,649, while Stage 1 complaints rose by 12% to 1,680, and Stage 2 complaints by 4% to 286. LGSCO complaints investigated decreased significantly, but the proportion upheld increased. Key themes for compliments included staff professionalism and good communication, while complaints often related to delays, communication issues, and the quality of services. Councillor Mark Biddle inquired about the SEND resolution team's size and ongoing reporting. Victoria Wilders agreed to take this offline. Councillor John Graham noted the increase in compliments and expressed interest in the new administration's performance. Councillor Ian Albert suggested benchmarking against comparable councils for future reports. The panel noted the report.

Response to Motion: Council Tax Collection and Support Schemes

Scott Crudgington presented a report responding to a council motion concerning council tax collection performance and support schemes. He clarified that the responsibility for council tax billing, collection, and support schemes lies with district and borough councils, not the county council. While the county council cannot mandate changes, it engages constructively through partnership forums. The report highlighted that £69 million in potential council tax yield is removed annually due to Council Tax Support (CTS) schemes. Councillor Richard Roberts expressed concern about the drop in collection rates in certain districts, particularly Hertsmere, and the significant financial implications. Scott Crudgington explained that CTS is a government scheme and the £69 million represents a discount, not uncollected debt. He also noted that some areas are more susceptible to economic downturns, impacting CTS claims. Councillor John Graham questioned the degree of discretion districts have in applying CTS schemes and whether the council actively influences these. Scott Crudgington confirmed that districts consult with the county council but have the right to set eligibility criteria, and that the county council has no veto power, despite bearing 80% of the cost. Councillor Alexander Curtis suggested that decisions on CTS schemes should be left to the new unitary authorities due to varying local demographics and challenges. Councillor Ian Albert expressed pride in North Herts' scheme and noted a lack of feedback from the county council on their practices. Scott Crudgington confirmed that comparative data would be part of the LGR financial workstream. The panel considered the response to the motion.

The meeting concluded with the noting of the report on compliments and complaints and the consideration of the response to the motion on council tax collection and support schemes. The next meeting was scheduled for 2nd June 2026.