HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

MINUTES of the meeting of the County Council held at County Hall, Hertford, on Tuesday 29th November 2005.

MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE

N E Agar M Downing A Lee S L Rackett D A Ashley D J Drake B Lee E T Roach D Beatty D S Drury D B Lloyd R Roberts N Bell R J M Ellis D E Lloyd P A Ruffles C L Berry B C Engel J Lloyd H M Saunders D E Billing S B A Giles-Medhurst R Mays D T F Scudder N K Brook P V Goggins J T Metcalf A M R Searing P T J Channell R I N Gordon A Mitchell E N Singam G R Churchard B N W Hammond (Chairman) J Morton R H Smith R J Clarkson D J Hewitt M D R Muir L Spencer R S Clements D W Hills S M P Newton W A Storey K J Coleman J A Hobday A Oaten I E M Tarry M D Colne N A Hollinghurst R G Parker R Thomas G M Cook S M Holmes D A A Peek M J Tucker M Cowan A F Hunter J M Pitman J W A Usher M E Coxage T G M Kent T J Price C J White D W Cullen I H Laidlaw-Dickson R G Prowse A S M Witherick A D Dodd B J Lamb S Quilty

Upon consideration of the agenda for the meeting of the County Council held on 29 November 2005, as circulated, action was taken or decisions were reached as follows:-

1. MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 19 July 2005 were confirmed.

2. CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

2.1 Election of new County Councillor for Shephall (Division 58)

The Chairman announced the election on 15 September 2005 of J Lloyd as the member for Stevenage (Shephall) in place of D Royall.

He welcomed County Councillor Lloyd to his first Council meeting.

2.2 Death of former County Councillor Graham Williams

The Chairman announced the death on 11 November 2005 of former County Councillor F G (Graham) Williams, who had

0e875b729b2fcd61fddf10e29a6825b7.doc 1 represented Croxley Green from 1989 to 1993. The Council stood in his memory.

2.3 Congratulations

The Council congratulated former County Councillor Lieutenant Colonel J A Fielder MBE on receiving an Honorary Doctorate of Law from the Hertfordshire University for his services to education and to the university.

The Council also congratulated the Hertfordshire Music Service who had recently been presented with the top trophy at the National Music Council’s 2005 Local Education Authority Awards.

3. PUBLIC QUESTIONS – STANDING ORDER 7 (10)

None were notified.

The Chairman took item 7, Public Petitions, at this point.

4. QUESTIONS: HERTFORDSHIRE POLICE AUTHORITY – STANDING ORDER 7 (6)

4.1 (a) C J White asked the Chairman of the Police Authority (I H Laidlaw-Dickson):-

“What actions were taken by senior police officers in Hertfordshire to lobby MPs in favour of the Government’s failed proposals to introduce a 90 day detention period in terrorist cases?”

(b) I H Laidlaw-Dickson replied:-

“A briefing paper provided by ACPO to the Home Office was circulated to all Hertfordshire MPs by the Chief Constable with a covering email dated 4 November 2005 as follows:-

‘The progress of the Terrorism Bill has prompted substantial debate and concern. I welcome this level of scrutiny. I am aware that the proposal to extend the period of detention without charge to 90 days is a particularly controversial one and that MPs have been asked to give this consideration over the weekend pending the further progress of the bill.

Whether the full 90 day period proposed in the Bill is the right period is a finely balanced argument but irrespective of whether you support the full 90 day period or not, I do believe that an extended period of detention before charge is necessary to deal with the complexities of modern terrorism.

0e875b729b2fcd61fddf10e29a6825b7.doc 2 To assist with your consideration of this matter I have attached a briefing paper* submitted by the police service to the Home Secretary which sets out some of the issues involved. I hope that this will be helpful and informative for you. If you wish to discuss the issues involved in more detail the Assistant Chief Constable, Rob Brackley, will be available over the weekend’.”

(*not attached to these minutes)

(c) C J White then asked the following supplementary question:-

“Could the Chairman of the Police Authority inform me of previous occasions over the past 5 years when similar lobbying by senior police officers took place, and what communication there was between the Chief Constable and the district councils over recent problems caused by changes to licensing legislation?”

(d) I H Laidlaw-Dickson replied:-

“I shall reply to you in writing on the first part of your supplementary question. The ethics of lobbying was discussed recently at the Hertfordshire Police Authority and a further report will be coming to a future meeting on the nature of that lobbying which will cover the question you ask. However, on the second part, I can say that there was considerable dialogue between the police and the district Chief Executives in the lead-up to the new legislation.”

[ (e) Written reply to first part of questions at (c):-

“The Chief Constable (and previous Chiefs) arrange regular meeting with MPs. These usually take place about twice a year and cover a number of topics. In addition specific lobbying on the budget has been arranged in each of the last few years; this has usually been dealt with at a regular meeting as the main topic with other issues being covered. Other than that we respond to MPs’ queries on an individual basis and provide them with information as asked.” ]

4.2 (a) N E Agar asked the Chairman of the Police Authority:-

“What instructions have been issued to members of the Herts Constabulary to detect infringements of the current ban on foxhunting, and prosecute offenders?”

(b) I H Laidlaw-Dickson replied:-

“The approach to enforcement is as follows:-

0e875b729b2fcd61fddf10e29a6825b7.doc 3 ‘Our strategy has been developed with reference to the National ACPO Strategic Considerations/Principals and ACPO National Tactical Considerations (January 2005):

The primary responsibility is the prevention of harm to all people involved.

The duty of the police is to prevent disorder and if it occurs to minimise its consequences.

The police have a duty to prevent the commission of crime and offences.

Police activity should be led by available intelligence and use of, where appropriate, the National Intelligence Model. The priority accorded to proactive measures to tackle persons offending against the Hunting Act (if any) should be driven by, amongst other influences:

(i) The seriousness of any offence (offences under the Hunting Act 2004 are not notifiable/recordable offences)

(ii) Resource considerations

(iii) What is practicable, having regard to public and officer safety.

(iv What is within the powers of the police ) Tactical Objectives

To provide a police presence at a hunt event within Hertfordshire to deter and prevent crime and disorder.

To facilitate activities of hunt participants, supporters and protesters which are conducted within the law.

To facilitate the free passage of vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity of the hunt.

To gather intelligence and evidence of suspected offences where the seriousness of such acts, taking into account the circumstances at the time, make that appropriate.

Overall Operational Considerations

The threat level for each hunt will need to be assessed on an individual operation basis, taking into account the information or intelligence available at the time. In broad terms, the operational risks will be conflict arising between protesters and hunt supporters due to one or more of the following activities:

0e875b729b2fcd61fddf10e29a6825b7.doc 4  Anti-hunt protesters attempting to disrupt lawful hunt activity.

 Anti-hunt protesters attempting to monitor the hunt for breaches of the law.

 Hunt participants or supporters attempting to frustrate the protesters efforts.  Hunt participants breaching hunting legislation.

 Either party attempting to provoke a confrontation.

 Either party feeling frustrated at an actual or perceived lack of police action to enforce the law, resulting in direct conflict with police officers.

Whilst police have a duty to enforce the law when breaches are apparent and to forestall potential breaches, the priority given to this should be determined locally, having regard to the Constabulary’s Strategic Aims.

It is likely that it will not be practicable for police to intercept a hunt and persons in the act of hunting - indeed to do so is likely to present considerable difficulties, both in executing such action and discharging our duty for prisoners’ property (including animals). It may well be that Operational Commanders find that the most proportionate and reasonable response to breaches of the Hunting Act lays in evidence gathering with a view to subsequent prosecution, as the Act confers a power to arrest, not a duty’.”

(c) N E Agar then asked the following supplementary question:-

“The pro-hunt lobby has produced a ‘how to keep hunting’ handbook and the website of the local hunt says that Hertfordshire is ‘well foxed’. If that does not constitute ‘reasonable suspicion’ then what does?”

(d) I H Laidlaw-Dickson replied:-

“I don’t know.”

5. REPORT FROM THE COUNTY COUNCILLOR MEMBERS OF THE HERTFORDSHIRE POLICE AUTHORITY

The Council received a report from County Councillor members of the Hertfordshire Police Authority, under Standing Order 7A, presented by I H Laidlaw-Dickson, Chairman of the Police Authority.

0e875b729b2fcd61fddf10e29a6825b7.doc 5 6. APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE / VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE

The following motion proposed by D B Lloyd and duly seconded was CARRIED:-

“That I E M Tarry be appointed to serve on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and to be its Vice-Chairman, with immediate effect (Vice-Chairmanship to 16 May 2006).”

7. PUBLIC PETITIONS - STANDING ORDER 14

The following petitions were presented to this meeting:-

7.1 A petition objecting to proposals in the draft Fire and Rescue Community Safety Plan which affected Bovingdon Fire Station, presented by Mrs K Banks.

7.2 A petition objecting to proposals in the draft Fire and Rescue Community Safety Plan which affected Royston Fire Station, presented by Mr P Chapman.

7.3 A petition objecting to proposals in the draft Fire and Rescue Community Safety Plan which affected Radlett Fire Station, presented by Ms C Brown.

All 3 petitions were referred to the Chief Fire Officer for incorporation into the consultation process on the Community Safety Plan, and to report to the Cabinet when the Plan came before them for approval.

In that connection, the Executive member for Adult Care and Community Safety informed the Council that this issue would be brought to full Council on 27 February 2006 to seek its views, prior to a decision on the Plan being taken at a special Cabinet meeting to be arranged immediately on the rising of the Council on that day.

8. REPORT FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (presented by the Chairman of the Committee, D B Lloyd)

Report received.

9. GENERAL REPORT FROM THE CABINET (presented by the Leader of the Council, R J M Ellis)

Report received.

0e875b729b2fcd61fddf10e29a6825b7.doc 6 10. LONDON 2012 OLYMPIC GAMES AND PARALYMPIC GAMES

10.1 The following motion was proposed by D A Ashley, and duly seconded:-

“That the Council endorses the outline objectives for the County Council set out in the appendix to the report and commits to support the Games.”

10.2 The following amendment proposed by I H Laidlaw-Dickson, and duly seconded, was LOST:-

“Add the words ‘and asks the Cabinet to consider setting up a Cabinet Panel to advise the Cabinet and serve as a “project board” to ensure that Hertfordshire plays a full part in providing facilities and encouraging participation in the Games and benefiting from promotion of sport within the County’.”

10.3 The motion at 10.1 was then CARRIED.

11. CORPORATE PLAN 2005/8

The following motion proposed by D Beatty, and duly seconded, was CARRIED:-

“That the Corporate Plan for 2005/2008 be adopted.”

12. MINERALS LOCAL PLAN REVIEW 2002 - 2016

The following motion proposed by D A Ashley, and duly seconded, was CARRIED:-

“That the County Council:

(i) confirms its response to the Inspector’s recommendations as set out in Appendix 1 of Annex A attached to the report; (ii) approves the draft Proposed Modifications to the Minerals Local Plan Review as set out in Appendix 3 of Annex A in light of the response to the Inspector’s recommendations, as a basis for consultation; (iii) approves the proposed response to the Inspector’s recommendations regarding the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance as set out in Appendix 2 of Annex A and the proposed amendments to the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance as set out in Appendix 4 of Annex A, as a basis for consultation in conjunction with the Minerals Local Plan Review Proposed Modifications; (iv) publicises the Proposed Modifications to the Minerals Local Plan Review and the revised draft Supplementary Planning

0e875b729b2fcd61fddf10e29a6825b7.doc 7 Guidance in accordance with the statutory procedures, together with the Council’s formal notice of intention to adopt the Minerals Local Plan Review as proposed to be modified.”

13. GOVERNANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY ARRANGEMENTS FOR HERTFORDSHIRE CHILDREN’S TRUST PARTNERSHIP

The following motion proposed by J M Pitman, and duly seconded, was CARRIED:-

“That the Constitution be amended so that the role of the Children, Schools and Families Scrutiny Committee is widened to include scrutiny of Children’s Trust arrangements, including the work of the Hertfordshire Children’s Trust Partnership (HCTP).”

14. KEY DECISIONS / FORWARD PLAN

The following motion proposed by R J M Ellis, and duly seconded, was CARRIED:-

“That the position of Key Decisions in the decision-making process shown in the current edition of the Forward Plan be noted.”

15. PROGRAMME OF MEETINGS – SEPTEMBER 2006 TO JULY 2007

The following motion proposed by R J M Ellis, and duly seconded, was CARRIED:-

“That the programme of meetings from September 2006 to July 2007 be noted and agreed.”

16. ITEMS OF BUSINESS REQUESTED BY MEMBERS UNDER STANDING ORDER 6 (2) (1)

None were notified.

17. NOTICES OF MOTION - STANDING ORDER 8 (5)

In order to promote the Council’s interests, the Chairman allowed the motions at 17.1 (a) and 17.2 (a) to be dealt with on the day.

17.1 (a) The following motion was proposed by C J White, and duly seconded:-

“That this Council notes with concern the statement issued by the Local Government Association on 2 November 2005 that local government faces a £2.2 billion funding gap caused by pressures outside the control of local government – mainly

0e875b729b2fcd61fddf10e29a6825b7.doc 8 caused by government legislation and other government pressures which will lead to an average 10% council tax increase in England. It notes that this statement has been agreed by the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Independent Groups on the LGA who have asked all councils to join the Local Government Association’s campaign for proper funding of local government.

In the short term the County Council requests:

(i) the Director of Finance to present a report on the specific funding pressures now facing this Council to a meeting comprising both councillors and our partners, especially the local community and businesses. (ii) the Cabinet to prepare a local publicity campaign which will highlight those pressures to the local public in support of the national LGA campaign. (iii) the Cabinet to invite local MPs to an early meeting with officers to discuss a joint approach to central government to highlight our local difficulties, and for the County Council to prepare a formal written submission to government, copied to the Local Government Association.

In the longer term, the County Council:

(i) regrets the shelving of the Lyons report on local government funding (ii) believes that the only fair way to fund local government is through a system of local taxation based on people’s ability to pay (iii) calls on the Government to publish proposals for reform in the next 6 months and introduce them as a matter of urgency so that they can be introduced in the lifetime of this Parliament.”

(b) The following amendment proposed by D Beatty, and duly seconded, was CARRIED:-

“That the motion at (a) be amended to read:-

‘That this Council notes with concern the statement issued by the LGA on 2/11/05 that local government faces a £2.2 billion funding cap caused almost entirely by pressures outside the control of local government – largely the result of the removal of the 2004/5 transitional grant, an inadequate funding proposal and significant unfunded legislative changes, which could lead to a council tax increase in England of up to 10%.

0e875b729b2fcd61fddf10e29a6825b7.doc 9 The Council notes that this statement has been agreed by the Conservative, Labour, Liberal/Democrat and Independent groups on the LGA who have asked all Councils to join the LGA’s campaign for proper funding of local government.

The Council is aware that the 2006/7 grant settlement date is in the next few days and recognises that the Administration is already aware of the possible funding gap and the pressures which we are facing and has contributed to the LGA’s financial study along with all other councils. Letters have been sent to all MPs seeking their support in lobbying for a better than proposed settlement.

The Council requests that, when the provisional settlement is known and the implications for Hertfordshire are clear, Cabinet should prepare a local publicity campaign as part of the national LGA campaign, invite local MPs to an early meeting to discuss a joint approach to central government in conjunction with approaches being made nationally by LGA, and prepare its 2006/7 budget proposals for submission to Cabinet, Scrutiny and Council in line with the timetable already set out.

In the longer term the Council:

(i) regrets the shelving of the Lyons report on local government funding; (ii) believes that there needs to be a full debate on alternative methods which might be considered for raising local government revenue; (iii) calls on the Government to set out a timetable for resolving this sensitive issue so that changes might be considered in the lifetime of this Parliament.’.”

(c) The substantive motion, as set out in (b), was then CARRIED.

17.2 (a) Immediately prior to consideration of the next item, the following 8 members each declared a prejudicial interest, as members of the Hertfordshire Police Authority. However, as that interest arose because of membership of another local authority under discussion they were exempt from the requirement to withdraw from the meeting, and remained, took part in the debate and voting on the matter:

M D Colne I H Laidlaw-Dickson A D Dodd D E Lloyd R J M Ellis R H Smith B C Engel A S M Witherick

0e875b729b2fcd61fddf10e29a6825b7.doc 10 (b) The following motion was proposed by C J White, and duly seconded:-

“That this County Council: (i) considers that the amalgamation of police forces and authorities is the wrong solution to the challenges facing modern policing (ii) believes that serious and organised crime can best be tackled by less disruptive changes, such as the creation of specialised regional squads and closer co-operation between police forces inside and outside the region (iii) believes that the solutions most likely to be favoured by the Government, namely alternative combinations of three forces, will make policing remote and are anyway little better than a regional police force (iv is concerned that there has been no debate about the ) composition of any new remote police authorities (v) considers that it is impossible for 9 councillors to represent the interests of councils and electors across three or more counties (vi considers that the excessively large Basic Command Units ) in Hertfordshire will not be effective in maintaining communication with local people if the police service is to become regionalised; and (vii) urges therefore the Cabinet to make the strongest possible representations in relation to the above.”

(c) The following amendment to (b) proposed by I H Laidlaw- Dickson, and duly seconded, was LOST:-

“Amend (i) to read ‘instructs the Overview and Scrutiny Committee urgently to scrutinise whether the amalgamation of police forces and authorities is the most appropriate solution to the challenges facing modern policing’, and delete the rest.”

(d) The following amendment to (b) proposed by R H Smith, and duly seconded was CARRIED:-

“That (iv), (v) and (vi) be amended to read as follows:-

‘(iv) is concerned that there has been no debate about the composition of any new remote police authorities given their continuing council tax precepting responsibilities (v) considers that it would be difficult for 9 or 10 councillors to represent the interests of electors across three or more counties (vi) considers that the Basic Command Unit (BCU) system in Hertfordshire would not be effective within a regionalised service in reflecting local views without related democratic

0e875b729b2fcd61fddf10e29a6825b7.doc 11 accountability at the BCU and CDRP levels’.” (e) The substantive motion was then CARRIED, as follows:-

“That this County Council: (i) considers that the amalgamation of police forces and authorities is the wrong solution to the challenges facing modern policing (ii) believes that serious and organised crime can best be tackled by less disruptive changes, such as the creation of specialised regional squads and closer co-operation between police forces inside and outside the region (iii) believes that the solutions most likely to be favoured by the Government, namely alternative combinations of three forces, will make policing remote and are anyway little better than a regional police force (iv) is concerned that there has been no debate about the composition of any new remote police authorities given their continuing council tax precepting responsibilities (v) considers that it would be difficult for 9 or 10 councillors to represent the interests of electors across three or more counties (vi) considers that the Basic Command Unit (BCU) system in Hertfordshire would not be effective within a regionalised service in reflecting local views without related democratic accountability at the BCU and CDRP levels (vii) urges therefore the Cabinet to make the strongest possible representations in relation to the above.”

18. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER 7 (1)

The following questions were notified to the County Secretary in accordance with Standing Orders, but due to time constraints the questioners agreed that the replies could be given in writing:-

18.1 (a) S B A Giles-Medhurst asked the Executive Member for Transportation and Environment:-

“Will the Executive Member please inform the Council when the Conservative Group decided to borrow £100 million towards highway maintenance?”

(b) D A Ashley (on behalf of the Executive Member for Transportation and Environment, who was absent) replied:-

“The provisional LTP2, approved by County Council and submitted in July 2005, contains targets to be achieved by March 2011. For highway condition, these show that the asset, including footways, will be in at least similar condition as they are now. Investigations into how this could be achieved have been progressing and were reported to the Highways and

0e875b729b2fcd61fddf10e29a6825b7.doc 12 Transport Panel at its meeting on 22 September 2005. Following this meeting, the work has been shared with Joint Member Highway Panels for their information. Further progress will be reported to the next meeting of the Highways and Transport Panel in December. Clearly, no final decision on budgets will be taken until County Council on 27 February 2006. Given the significance of this work, it seems appropriate that the preparatory work that could lead to increased investment, be shared with members.”

18.2 (a) S L Rackett asked the Executive Member for Resources:-

“Hertfordshire County Council owns a number of residential properties in Watford, let to tenants and managed by Watford Borough Council's housing department. Given this arrangement, and that residents feel they are tenants of Watford Borough Council, does the county believe that these properties should form part of Watford's housing stock transfer proposals? If not, what future management arrangements are envisaged should the rest of Watford Council's stock transfer to another landlord?

What legal advice, if any, has the County Council received in relation to these properties?”

(b) D Beatty replied:-

“I would like to make it very clear that any proposed changes to the status quo – and any consequential concerns on the part of the occupiers of these properties – are entirely due to the actions of Watford Borough Council. The County Council has proposed no changes whatsoever to the current arrangements.

In reply to the first part of the question – no, the County Council does not believe that the 24 properties in question, that are owned by the County Council and which the County Council has never regarded as being permanent social housing units, should form part of Watford Borough Council’s housing stock transfer proposals.

In reply to the second part of the question – this will be the subject of discussions over coming months between the County Council and Watford Borough Council.

In reply to the third part of the question – Watford Borough Council has shared its legal advice with the County Council and the County Council is currently reviewing that advice.”

18.3 (a) S L Rackett asked the Executive Member for Resources:-

“The County Council owns the site of the Bill Everett Community

0e875b729b2fcd61fddf10e29a6825b7.doc 13 Centre in North Watford, a leisure, community & sports centre. Watford Borough Council, which funds the substantial part of the centre's budget has indicated it wishes to withdraw financial support in four years, which would mean the facility would close in around 2009/10. However, if the Borough Council were to reverse its policy and commit to keeping the centre open in the long term, would Hertfordshire County Council have any objection?”

(b) D Beatty replied:-

“The County Council's ownership of the site of the Bill Everett Community Centre in North Watford is subject to an agreement for lease with Watford Borough Council.

I am aware that the Borough Council is implementing changes to its leisure services and that they may wish to surrender their interest in three or four year’s time once the improved facilities are in use.

I am also aware that West Herts College, which also provides funding for the running of the centre, is implementing its plan to relocate its services from the adjoining Leggatts campus and they too will wish to cease funding once their alternative improved facilities are in use.

The County Council has a youth service presence in the Centre and that could be relocated to another part of Watford.

My view is that we should recognise that all of the current facilities provided by the Borough Council, the College and the County Council are approaching the end of their useful lives and that the three organisations should be planning for the future of the sites.

Also that we should recognise the needs of the immediate community would be taken into account by the Borough Council, as planning authority, in considering any proposals for new uses that may be brought forward.”

(c) S L Rackett then asked the following supplementary question:- “Would the Executive Member take a similar view with theYouth Centre next door to the Bill Everett Centre, and also would the County Council be prepared to lease the site of the Bill Everett Centre to the Watford Borough Council?”

(d) D Beatty replied:-

“Should it be appropriate to relocate the Youth Centre we should wish to ensure that the alternative accommodation meets the

0e875b729b2fcd61fddf10e29a6825b7.doc 14 needs of the service and is fit for that purpose. If the Borough Council does decide to surrender their current interest once the improved facilities are in use, then the future arrangements for the County Council’s site would need to have regard to proposals for its future use.”

18.4 (a) M Cowan asked the Executive Member for Transportation and Environment:-

“Currently, it is obvious from all over the county that road signs are widely obscured by vegetation. Only signs that are illuminated are kept clear under contract. Unilluminated signs are not, and the present arrangements to keep them clear rely overmuch on goodwill.

The County has a policy to move to unilluminated signs, which while welcome in other ways, is likely to worsen the overall clearance rate.

Will the Executive Member agree that a more pro-active regime is required, and ask the officers to bring forward for decision by members, one or more costed approaches that have at their heart a contract to keep all the signs, whether illuminated or not, clear all year round, and this be properly monitored?

And does he have confidence that the existing clearance arrangements for illuminated signs are working satisfactorily?”

(b) D A Ashley (on behalf of the Executive Member for Transportation and Environment, who was absent) replied:-

“If Mr Cowan is aware of any highway signs obscured by vegetation I would urge him and any other members to report them immediately using the County Council’s highways fault reporting system.

Depending on the situation, the problem is classified as either a category 1 or category 2 fault and it gets prioritised and dealt with accordingly. I believe this to be a suitable and satisfactory regime for sign clearance which is working reasonably well.

I do, however, have some sympathy with the view that we should look at our standards for this to see if we can improve, and this is something that we will be picking up in the review of the Highway Asset Management Plan due to be reported to the Highways and Transport Panel in the new year.”

ANDREW LAYCOCK

0e875b729b2fcd61fddf10e29a6825b7.doc 15 County Secretary

0e875b729b2fcd61fddf10e29a6825b7.doc 16