Controversial Herts County Council plans to sell entire County Hall estate will be reconsidered

The council’s nine-strong Liberal Democrat cabinet determined last month that the whole Hertford site should be marketed.

At the same meeting they approved creation of a new council chamber and committee room on the council’s Stevenage campus.

But on Wednesday (July 9) the council’s overview and scrutiny committee ruled that the cabinet should reconsider its decision.

It said the cabinet should have considered more detailed financial information before making its decision and, with local government reorganisation looming, should consider “whether now is the right tine to make the decision”.

There were also suggestions that the cabinet should consider putting such an important decision before full council.

As a result, the plans will remain on pause until they can be discussed again by a future meeting of the cabinet.

The committee’s review of the cabinet’s decision was triggered by a challenge from Conservative councillors.

Presenting the ‘call-in’, Cllr Alexander Curtis (Hoddesdon North) compared the location and gravitas of the existing council chamber with the suitability of a “second-rate room” in Stevenage.

He questioned financial information and estimated costs as well as work to explore potential uses for County Hall or whether the council could ultimately rent the chamber from a developer.

He said the cabinet’s decision had “not been taken with a strong evidence base” and had been rushed.

After acknowledging Hertford as having been the centre of civic governance for 1,000 years and describing County Hall as a “grade II* listed civic jewel”, Cllr Curtis said the council chamber was the only space with the gravitas needed for civic ceremonial and administrative meetings.

In contrast, he said, the room earmarked for council meetings at HCC’s campus in Stevenage reminded him of the set of Ricky Gervais’ hit TV sit com.

“It reminded me a bit of the set for The Office,” he said. “I sort of thought it was like David Brent’s workplace in Slough.

“That is not befitting of a council, especially one of this size and importance. This is not a serious meeting space for our meetings – it is not designed as such.”

Suggesting the decision should be taken by a meeting of the full council rather than cabinet, he said it was “inappropriate” for cabinet members of one party to determine something as fundamental as where the council chose to have its meetings.

He later said: “What we have here is far better. Why switch out what works? Yes, there might be some small increased cost of having meetings here, but is that not a price worth paying?”

The bulk of the council’s Peg’s Lane site – comprising newer office buildings, but not the grade II* listed main building – has been marketed for “employment use” for the past two years. But there has been “limited market interest” from companies looking to rent or buy the office space.

The only income is reported to be from film and TV companies using the site as a filming location.

Cllr Curtis said other potential uses – such as weddings, dinners and other private hire events – had not been explored by the cabinet before making its decision.

He said there should have been exploration of options that could include the council continuing to rent, or retaining, a section of the building – including the chamber – after any purchase was made.

He questioned the estimated £9.7m costs of splitting the front part of the building – and the impact it could have on an ultimate sale price – as well as figures presented as running costs.

In response, Liberal Democrat executive member for resources and performance Cllr Chris Lucas said the cabinet’s decision made sense in terms of finance, sustainability and accessibility.

In making his case, he also highlighted the £9.7m estimated cost of separating the front part of the building so it could be retained by the council, as well as the number of meetings held and the costs incurred.

He said that in 2024-25 there had been 104 democratic meetings held at County Hall – only 29 of those included more than 20 attendees.

With running costs in 2025 expected to be “just shy of £3m”, he suggested that would equate to a cost of £22,115 per meeting.

A “responsible administration” had to ask whether this was value for money, he said – or whether another asset could be repurposed to achieve the same purpose.

However, during the debate that followed, some councillors questioned the £22,000 figure and sought information on running costs, whether the building was in use or vacant.

Cllr Lucas said that the chamber was too hot in summer and too cold in winter, and would need investment to be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act.

He said it made sense to bring democratic meetings closer to the council’s core operations, in Stevenage – reducing the time and cost of ferrying officers and equipment between sites and the impact on the environment.

“County Hall is no longer fit for purpose and it fails to deliver in terms of sustainability, accessibility and financial viability,” said Cllr Lucas.

“Hertfordshire County Council has a modern, viable building that could easily be repurposed to meet our needs, which would be a much better use of taxpayers’ money.”

And he later added: “We all know that this is a beautiful venue and there’s no doubt about it. But now is not the time to put hearts before minds – in these straitened economic times.”

Following the meeting – that lasted almost three hours – the majority of the committee voted for the decision to be referred back to cabinet for reconsideration.

They said that at that meeting more details should be considered relating to running costs of the County Hall site, the potential for a business rates reduction and to costs to separate the front of the building.

They said there should be more information about potential income from use of County Hall for private hire and the comparative costings of meetings being held in Stevenage and at County Hall.

And they said there should be information about the potential for a developer to facilitate the council’s continued use of the front section of the building for civic and democratic purposes.

The plans are set to be reconsidered by cabinet on Monday 21 July.

Following the meeting, Cllr Lucas told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: “I think it’s unfortunate that it has been pushed back and delayed, but actually it’s the [committee’s] job to scrutinise decisions.

“I think it was a thorough examination of the item and a prime example of democracy in motion.

“Officers will be happy to provide further information. And that will only support the need to move to Stevenage and to market County Hall for alternative uses.”

As for the suggestion that the cabinet should put the decision before full council, Cllr Lucas said: “There is a fair and valid democratic process whereby the party with the most seats is allowed to form an administration to govern how the council runs, including cabinet panels and including overview and scrutiny that scrutinises decisions.

“I don’t see the need to push any difficult decision consistently to full council, just being a minority administration.

“I think it should follow the council structures. And the constitution is quite clear that decision-making is through cabinet.”