The Overview and Scrutiny Committee met to consider a call-in regarding the marketing of County Hall for alternative uses and the relocation of democratic meetings. The committee ultimately decided to refer the decision back to the Cabinet for reconsideration, citing insufficient detail in financial information and concerns about the process for such a significant decision.

Marketing of County Hall and Relocation of Democratic Meetings

The committee considered a call-in regarding the Cabinet's decision to market County Hall for alternative uses and relocate democratic meetings to the Stevenage Campus. Councillor Alexander Curtis, the lead member for the call-in, argued that County Hall, a grade two-star listed civic jewel with a thousand-year history as Hertfordshire's centre of governance, should not have its fate decided by a minority of the Cabinet. He expressed concerns about the lack of detailed financial evidence supporting the move, the proposed £9.7 million cost for separating the front of County Hall, and the potential for a reduced capital receipt if the historic front section is included in the sale. Councillor Curtis also questioned the financial model used, the running costs of County Hall, and the borrowing of £750,000 before a capital receipt has been secured, suggesting it might breach the council's budget framework. He advocated for the decision to be referred to the full council, given its fundamental nature and the historical significance of Hertford as the county town.

Councillor Chris Lucas, the Executive Member for Resources and Performance, defended the Cabinet's decision, highlighting that the previous Conservative administration had initiated the strategy to relocate most services to Stevenage. He stated that County Hall's running costs were nearly £3 million annually, with each meeting costing £22,115, and that the building was no longer fit for purpose due to issues with sustainability, accessibility, and financial viability. Councillor Lucas argued that the Stevenage Campus offered a modern, accessible, and sustainable alternative, and that relocating meetings there would reduce costs and environmental impact. He also noted that marketing County Hall for alternative uses had yielded little interest previously.

During the debate, members raised numerous points. Councillor Sandy Walkington acknowledged the building's age and unsuitability for modern accessibility needs, but also expressed concern about the potential for a glut of grade two-star buildings on the market post-local government reorganisation. Councillor Matthew Hurst echoed the sentiment that the building was not fit for a 21st-century council, while Councillor Stephen Watson questioned the financial assumptions regarding the capital receipt and the symbolic importance of Hertford. Councillor Alistair Willoughby supported the move to Stevenage based on financial and operational cases but agreed that a decision of this scale should go to full council for greater accountability.

Councillor Chris Lloyd expressed discomfort with the speak once rule and requested more detailed financial information, suggesting that the decision should be referred back to Cabinet for further exploration of options and costs. He also raised concerns about the potential for a new council chamber in Stevenage to be a temporary solution given local government reorganisation.

The Director of Law and Governance, Quentin Baker, and the Section 151 Officer, Stephen Pillsworth, provided legal and financial advice. Mr. Baker stated that the decision was not in breach of the council's policy framework regarding the location of meetings. However, Mr. Pillsworth clarified that while the costs of the new council chamber were not a specific line item in the budget, they could be funded from capital receipts from the sale of County Hall, and that the council had significant headroom within its borrowing limits. He also addressed business rates, noting that a reduction might be possible if the building were fully vacated, but not if any part was retained for use.

Despite the legal and financial advice suggesting no breach of the budget framework, Councillor Alexander Curtis reiterated his belief that the decision's funding mechanism, borrowing in advance of a realised capital receipt, was not prudent and should have been explicitly approved by the full council.

Ultimately, the committee voted on two options:

• Option B: Reference back to Cabinet for reconsideration. This option received seven votes in favour.
• Option C: Refer to full Council. This option received four votes in favour.

The committee's reasons for referring the decision back to Cabinet were detailed as follows:

• Insufficient detail in the financial information provided to Cabinet, specifically concerning the running costs of County Hall, potential business rate exemptions, the cost of separating the building, potential income generation, and comparative costings for meetings in Stevenage versus County Hall.
• Concerns about the uncertainty surrounding local government reorganisation and whether a decision on the council chamber should be made before the implications of reorganisation are clearer.
• A request that consideration of such an important decision, impacting the county town's role as the centre for democracy and governance, should be made by the full council rather than just the Cabinet.

The committee's decision means that the Cabinet will reconsider its original decision, taking into account the committee's recommendations and potentially seeking further information before deciding whether to refer the matter to a full council meeting.