The Resources and Performance Cabinet Panel of Hertfordshire County Council 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 council assets, and the strategic management of the council's property portfolio. Key decisions included approving capital budgets for new primary schools in Gilston, declaring several council-owned sites surplus to requirements for disposal, and endorsing the new Strategic Asset Management Plan.

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 timely decisions to align school delivery programs with the development's phasing. The nearest existing schools are not well-located or have sufficient capacity for the anticipated population. A flexible approach has been adopted, with decisions on school place requirements informed by an Education Review Group. The panel heard that the Section 106 agreement secures land and funding for up to seven primary school sites.

Councillor Alexander Curtis raised concerns about potential delays in processing planning applications and the risk of losing Housing Infrastructure Grant funding. Kate Leahy assured the panel that discussions were ongoing regarding the deadline for this funding, and that it would revert to Section 106 developer contributions if the deadline passed.

Councillor Mark Biddle questioned the contingency plan if a primary school could not be delivered by the required September opening date. Kate Leahy explained that while the report allows for flexibility, there would likely be a period when new homes are occupied before a new school is available. Existing schools locally would be used, with admissions ensuring every child gets a place as close to their home address as possible.

Councillor Dr Ben Crystall inquired about the sustainability uplift on school funding, and Kate Leahy confirmed that this was embedded in the Section 106 agreement and obligated to be funded by developers.

Councillor Ian Albert raised concerns about project costs exceeding 10% due to international events and asked about contingency plans. Matt Barker explained that provisions for indexation within the Section 106 agreement and contingency pots built into cost budgets would help mitigate these risks. He also noted that the DfE scorecard costs, updated annually, take inflationary increases into account.

Councillor Tim Williams inquired about Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) provision in the new schools. Kate Leahy confirmed that specific contributions were being sought for SEND provision within the development, including units for children with higher needs or support bases.

The panel ultimately recommended to Cabinet that it approve the capital budget for two primary schools, one in Village 1 and one in Village 7, funded by the Housing Investment Grant and Section 106 contributions respectively. Authority was delegated to the Executive Director of Children's Services to agree final contract values. It was also agreed that the portfolio holder for education would write to the Secretary of State to highlight the importance of timely school provision.

Future of Land at Highfield Farm, Tittenhanger

Sass Pleasure and James Barber presented proposals for the future of land at Highfield Farm, Tittenhanger. The site, comprising former agricultural buildings and associated land, 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 these buildings to residential dwellings. Disposal of the land would generate a capital receipt, supporting the council's financial position. The panel recommended to Cabinet that the land be declared surplus to requirements and available for disposal, with terms delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive and Executive Director of Resources.

Councillor Richard Roberts fully supported the disposal, noting that the administration had made it clear in the budget that they wished to dispose of assets no longer needed. He also raised concerns about the wider context of St Albans District Council's increased housing allocation and the potential downgrading of Green Belt land.

Future of the Former Bill Everett Centre, Watford

Sass Pleasure and James Barber also presented proposals for the future of the former Bill Everett Centre in Watford. The site has been vacant since 2009 and was previously used as a sports and community centre. It was returned to the County Council in 2009, and the building was demolished in 2014. The land has since been held as a reserve primary school site. Recent engagement with education colleagues confirmed no anticipated requirement for the site for education purposes, and its size is below what is typically required for a two-form of entry primary school. The proposed disposal would generate a capital receipt and provide much-needed housing.

Councillor Richard Roberts fully supported the proposal for disposal and residential development. Councillor Ian Albert inquired about the likelihood of Watford Borough Council agreeing to the disposal, given its current allocation as an education site in the local plan. James Barber confirmed that Watford's estates and planning departments had been engaged, and that the council was confident in presenting evidence to support the site's suitability for housing. The panel recommended to Cabinet that the centre be declared surplus to requirements and available for disposal, with terms delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive and Executive Director of Resources.

Terms for the Sale of Land at Chequersfield, Welwyn Garden City

Sass Pleasure and James Barber provided an overview of the proposed terms for the sale of land at Chequersfield, Welwyn Garden City. The freehold disposal of the site was approved by Cabinet in 2023. The site is affected by significant historic landfill contamination, and the council has sought a purchaser with the expertise and financial capacity to remediate it. Provisional terms have been agreed with VolkerWessels, a specialist in civil engineering and land remediation. The panel was asked to note the disposal, which represents an opportunity to ensure safe remediation and secure a capital receipt.

Councillor Mark Biddle, the local member, expressed concerns about the potential impact of future development on traffic flow, air quality, and noise pollution for local residents. He proposed an amendment to ensure these issues were considered. Scott Crudgington, Deputy Chief Executive, advised that these concerns would be best managed through the planning system, which requires detailed assessments and mitigations. He also noted that air quality and noise monitoring enforcement is carried out by district and borough councils. The panel agreed that the estates team would consider Councillor Biddle's points during the disposal process.

Future of Secure Tenancies

Sass Pledger and Stuart Paskins presented proposals for the future approach to the County Council's non-operational secure tenancy portfolio. The council holds 35 secure tenancy properties, which are not used for service delivery and arose from historical staff housing arrangements. Retaining these properties would require substantial capital investment and divert resources from frontline priorities. Extensive tenant engagement has shown broad support for transferring to another provider. Disposal would generate a capital receipt and reduce ongoing revenue liabilities.

Councillor Alexander Curtis questioned the financial prudence of disposing of assets that generate revenue, and the long-term implications of sacrificing future revenue income. The Chair highlighted the council's £40 million deficit over the next three years and the need for cost efficiencies. Councillor Mark Biddle raised concerns about contradictions in the Equality Impact Assessment, and Sass Pledger clarified that risks were mostly green or amber, with amber risks to be addressed through consultation and ballot processes. Councillor Ian Albert supported the paper in principle but asked about the range of providers being considered and the impact of the Renters Rights Act. Sass Pledger confirmed that while housing providers were the primary focus, marketing would be wider for best consideration, and that secure tenants have protected status. Councillor Tim Williams agreed that disposal was the best value, given the council is not a housing authority and lacks the necessary expertise. The panel recommended that Cabinet delegate authority to the Deputy Chief Executive and Executive Director of Resources to agree the terms of the disposal.

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

Sass Pledger and Stuart Paskins presented the new Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) 2025-2029. The plan outlines 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 council's estate is large and complex, comprising 2,276 land and building assets with a total value of approximately £3.2 billion. The SAMP introduces five strategic objectives and aims to ensure assets actively contribute to service delivery, financial resilience, and long-term outcomes for residents.

Councillor Alexander Curtis raised concerns about the suitability of existing council chambers for potential future unitary authorities, suggesting that County Hall might need to be retained in some form. The Chair acknowledged the speculation surrounding Local Government Reorganisation but stated that provision could be made for suitable spaces. Councillor Mark Biddle questioned the fallback plan if the SAMP's assumptions did not hold. Sass Pledger explained that the plan includes an active work plan that will be monitored regularly, allowing for amendments if needed. Scott Crudgington added that the backup plan would involve traditional savings and alternative service delivery methods if capital receipts targets were not met. Councillor Richard Roberts expressed nervousness about assets being used to drive capital receipts and the potential for the SAMP to become out of sync with other council initiatives, citing examples of delays in supported living accommodation and the Joint Emergency Services Project (JESA). Councillor England, Executive Member for Sustainability, welcomed the plan's sustainability goals. The panel recommended that Cabinet review and approve the implementation of the SAMP.

Hertfordshire County Council Performance Monitor – Quarter 3

Paraic McKenna presented the Q3 performance report, noting that it followed recommendations from a cross-party task and finish group. The report provides an overview of 40 deliverables in the corporate plan, with updates in bullet points. It also includes snapshots of key priorities and strategic business-as-usual metrics. 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. Councillor Alexander Curtis used a humorous analogy to highlight concerns about road conditions and the cancellation of Highways Cabinet Panel meetings. Councillor England commented on the prioritization of potholes and SEND over sustainability in the report. Councillor Richard Roberts praised the improved format of the reports. The panel noted the report and requested Cabinet approve the metrics and approach outlined.

Hertfordshire County Council Resources Management Board Performance Monitor – Quarter 3

Paraic McKenna also presented the Q3 performance monitor for the Resources Management Board. The report covers metrics related to infrastructure and corporate-wide measurements. Two metrics were flagged as amber: workforce headcount numbers, highlighting it as an area of focus for the executive board, and response times to freedom of information requests, which had fallen below the expected 90% target due to increased volume and complexity of requests. Councillor Mark Biddle inquired about practices shared to reduce sickness absence and which directorates overspend on agency staff. Scott Crudgington explained that while Resources had low sickness levels, the trend was increasing, and that 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. Scott Crudgington agreed to provide this data. Councillor Curtis suggested an indicator for time spent in Teams/Zoom calls, which Scott Crudgington agreed to discuss strategically rather than as a formal metric. 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% overall, with significant rises in Children's Services. Stage 1 complaints increased by 12%, and Stage 2 complaints by 4%. LGSCO investigations had reduced, but the proportion of upheld complaints increased. Key themes for compliments included staff professionalism and good communication, while complaints often related to delays, quality of service, and communication issues. 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. The panel noted the report.

Response to Motion: Council Tax Collection and Support Schemes

Scott Crudgington presented a report responding to a motion concerning council tax collection performance and support schemes. He clarified that the responsibility for council tax billing, collection, and support schemes rests 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 across Hertfordshire, Council Tax Support schemes remove approximately £69 million from the taxbase annually. Councillor Richard Roberts expressed concern about the drop in collection rates in Hertsmere and the overall £69 million impact, suggesting this would need to be addressed during Local Government Reorganisation. Scott Crudgington clarified that Council Tax Support is a government scheme that discounts the potential taxbase. Councillor John Graham asked about the discretion of boroughs in applying CTS schemes, and Scott Crudgington explained that while districts consult with the county, they have the right to set eligibility criteria. Councillor Curtis argued for an egalitarian approach to CTS and suggested that these decisions should be left to the new unitary authorities. Councillor Ian Albert praised North Herts' CTS scheme and noted the lack of feedback from the county council. Scott Crudgington confirmed that comparative work on CTS schemes would be part of the LGR financial workstream. Councillor Taylor and Councillor Hill supported the importance of local councils supporting residents with council tax reductions. The panel considered the response to the motion.

Any Other Business

The Chair noted the dates of the next two Resources and Performance Cabinet Panel meetings: 2nd June 2026 and 14th July 2026.