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 development, the future of several council-owned sites, and the adoption of a new Strategic Asset Management Plan. Key discussions included approving capital budgets for new primary schools in Gilston and considering the declaration of several sites surplus to requirements for disposal.

New School Places for Gilston Development

The panel received an update on plans to ensure sufficient education infrastructure for the new Gilston Garden community, which aims to deliver up to 10,000 new homes. To support this, the council sought approval for capital budgets to deliver the first new primary schools. The panel noted that the council would run a competition to find an appropriate school trust to run the new schools. Councillor Graham's request for the portfolio holder for education to write to the Secretary of State regarding the importance of having a primary school ready by first occupation was noted as an action to be included in the minutes.

Disposal of Council-Owned Sites

Several council-owned sites were discussed with a view to declaring them surplus to requirements and making them available for disposal.

• Highfield Farm, Tittenhanger: The panel considered a recommendation that Cabinet agree to declare the land at Highfield Farm surplus to requirements and available for disposal. Authority to agree the terms of the disposal was to be delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive and Executive Director of Resources, in consultation with the Executive Member for Resources and Performance. Councillor Richard Roberts, Leader of the Conservative Group, supported the disposal, noting that the site had been identified as surplus in 2019 and that the administration's budget aimed to dispose of unneeded assets.
• Former Bill Everett Centre, Watford: The panel considered a recommendation that Cabinet agree to declare the former Bill Everett Centre surplus to requirements and available for disposal. Similar to Highfield Farm, authority to agree the terms of the disposal was to be delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive and Executive Director of Resources, in consultation with the Executive Member for Resources and Performance. This decision included agreeing terms with Watford Borough Council regarding their historic land interests and the distribution of proceeds. Councillor Richard Roberts supported the proposal, stating it made sense for disposal and residential development. Councillor Ian Albert raised concerns about the process of changing the site's allocation from an education site to residential, and the likely timeline for Watford Borough Council's agreement. James Barber, Strategic Assets Manager, confirmed that Watford Borough Council's estates and planning departments had been consulted, and confidence was expressed that Watford would see the rationale for redevelopment for housing.
• Future of Secure Tenancies: The panel was asked to consider the future approach to the council's non-operational secure tenancy portfolio, which comprises 35 properties. The recommendation was to delegate authority to the Deputy Chief Executive and Executive Director of Resources, in consultation with the Director of Finance and the Executive Member for Resources and Performance, to agree the terms of the disposal. Councillor Alexander Curtis raised concerns about rent changes, the cost of running these properties, and the long-term revenue income being sacrificed for short-term capital receipts. Sass Pledger, Director of Property, explained that registered providers have economies of scale and can manage costs more effectively. Councillor Mark Biddle raised questions about the equality impact assessment, and it was confirmed that while there were moderate impacts identified for age and disability, actions were planned to mitigate these. Councillor Tim Williams, Deputy Executive Member for Resources and Performance, supported the disposal, highlighting the council's financial pressures and the need to dispose of assets no longer fit for purpose.

Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) 2025-2029

The panel considered the new Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) for 2025-2029. The plan sets out how Hertfordshire County Council will manage, optimise, and invest in its land and property assets to support the delivery of the corporate plan and wider council priorities. The recommendation was for Cabinet to review the contents of the SAMP and approve its implementation. Councillor Alexander Curtis raised concerns about the potential impact of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) on meeting spaces and the need to retain County Hall. Councillor Matthew Hurst questioned the fallback plan if the SAMP's assumptions did not hold true. Councillor John Graham commented that the plan aligned with the revised corporate plan, while Councillor Ian Albert welcomed the plan's urgency and the message it sent to residents about making the best use of assets. Councillor Ben Crystall raised questions about the achievability of capital receipt targets and the implications for listed buildings. Councillor Richard Roberts expressed nervousness about assets being used to drive capital receipts and the potential for the plan to become out of sync with other council activities, citing examples like supported living accommodation and the Joint Emergency Services Project (JESA). Councillor Peter Taylor supported the paper, noting the importance of council tax reduction schemes and the need for flexibility in their application. Councillor Tim Williams also supported the paper, emphasizing that the council is not a housing authority and that it is best to seek bids from external organisations. The panel noted the recommendation to approve the implementation of the SAMP.

Performance Monitoring and Other Reports

• Hertfordshire County Council Performance Monitor for Q3 2025-26: The panel noted the report, which detailed performance across the council's five corporate plan priorities. Councillor Mark Biddle raised a question about the accessibility of online tools for carer's assessments, which was to be taken offline. Councillor Alexander Curtis used a soft toy to highlight concerns about potholes and the state of roads, and questioned when Highways Cabinet Panel meetings would resume. Councillor Richard Roberts thanked officers and members of the cross-party group for the improved format of the performance reports.
• Hertfordshire County Council Resources Management Board Performance Monitor for Q3 2025-26: The panel noted the report, which focused on metrics related to infrastructure and corporate-wide measurements. Councillor Mark Biddle asked about sharing best practices for reducing sickness absence and identifying directorates consistently overspending on agency staff. Scott Crudgington, Deputy Chief Executive, explained that agency spend was higher in hard-to-recruit areas like legal and technology, and that sickness absence was a concern across all departments, with stress and depression being significant factors. Councillor Alexander Curtis suggested a metric for time spent in Teams and Zoom calls, which Scott Crudgington agreed to explore strategically rather than as a formal metric.
• Compliments and Complaints Report 2024-25: The panel noted the report, which detailed an increase in compliments received and a slight increase in Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaints. Complaints investigated by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) had significantly reduced. Councillor Mark Biddle asked for more information on the SEND resolution team and ongoing updates on its progress. Councillor John Graham noted the increase in compliments, particularly in Children's Services. Councillor Ian Albert suggested benchmarking complaint figures against comparable councils. Councillor Alexander Curtis highlighted a 12% increase in complaints in Children's Services during the previous administration.
• Response to Motion: Council Tax Collection and Support Schemes: The panel considered the motion regarding council tax collection performance and support schemes. Scott Crudgington, Head of Corporate Finance, explained that the responsibility for council tax billing, collection, and support schemes lies with district and borough councils, not the county council. However, the county council engages constructively through partnership forums. Councillor Richard Roberts expressed concern about the £69 million lost to council tax support schemes and the potential discrepancies this could cause during Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). Councillor John Graham inquired about the degree of discretion district councils have in applying council tax support schemes and Hertfordshire County Council's role in influencing these. Councillor Alexander Curtis argued for egalitarianism in schemes and suggested underestimating council tax collection targets. Councillor Ian Albert praised North Herts' council tax reduction scheme and noted a lack of feedback from the county council. Councillor Peter Taylor and Councillor Penelope Hill supported the importance of council tax reduction schemes and argued that decisions on these should be left to the new unitary authorities. The panel considered the response to the motion.

The meeting concluded with the noting of any other business and the announcement of future meeting dates.