Agenda and minutes

1.         This meeting is to be webcast. Members are reminded of the need to activate their microphones before speaking.

2.         The Chairman will read the following announcement:

“I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live to the Internet and will be capable of repeated viewing and copies of the recording could be made available for those that request it.

If you are seated in the lower public seating area it is likely that the recording cameras will capture your image and this will result in the possibility that your image will become part of the broadcast.

This may infringe your human and data protection rights and if you wish to avoid this you should move to the upper public gallery”

The Chairman made a short address to remind all present that the meeting would be broadcast on the Internet, and that the Council had adopted a protocol for the webcasting of its meetings.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

It was reported that Councillor K Chana was substituting for Councillor J Hart.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To declare interests in any items on the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview & Scrutiny members are asked pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an OS Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee or Joint Sub Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an OS meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such a matter.

(a)        Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillor K Angold-Stephens declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 by virtue of being a member of Plans South and a member of the Roding Valley Meadows Nature Reserve Management Committee.  He declared that any comments made would be based on available evidence and he would re-consider his position at Plans South should new evidence come to light and should any planning application materialise in the future.

(b)        Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillor S Murray declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 by virtue of having friends living adjacent to the sites mentioned and being the Council representative on the Roding Valley Meadows Nature Reserve Management Board.  The Councillor declared that his interests were not prejudicial and indicated that he would remain in the meeting during the consideration of the item.

(c)        Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillor D Wixley declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 by virtue of being on the Loughton Town Council Planning Committee and a Tree Warden connected to one of the sites under discussion.  The Councillor declared that his interests were not prejudicial and indicated that he would remain in the meeting during the consideration of the item.

(d)        Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs P Richardson declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 by virtue of being a member of Plans South and a member of Loughton Town Council.  She declared that any comments made would be based on available evidence and she would re-consider her position at Plans South should new evidence come to light and should any planning application materialise in the future.

(e)        Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillors R Law and Mrs C Pond declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 by virtue of having being members of Loughton Town Council.  They declared that any comments made would be based on available evidence and they would re-consider their position at Plans South should new evidence come to light and should any planning application materialise in the future

(f)         Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillors Mrs Haigh, M Cohen, G Mohindra and K Chana declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 by virtue of having being a member of Plans South. They declared that any comments made would be based on available evidence and they would re-consider their position at Plans South should new evidence come to light and should any planning application materialise in the future.

Decisions required:

To confirm the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 10 July 2008.

            RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 July 2008 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

To consider a call-in of the Housing Portfolio Holder’s Decision on the Council Owned Sites to be submitted for consideration as future residential land in response to the Council’s “Call for Sites”. (HSG/010/2008-09). Call-in papers and report are attached.

The Committee were asked to consider the call-in of the Housing Portfolio Holders decision of 5 August 2008 (HSG/010/2008-09) regarding the recently issued ‘call for sites’, seeking land that may have potential for development over at least the next fifteen years.

Councillor Angold-Stephens, the lead member of the call-in, vacated his position as Vice Chairman of the Committee for the duration of the consideration of this item. The Chairman then informed the meeting of the protocol for the handling of a call-in and asked that each speaker be given a fair hearing.

In accordance with the Overview and Scrutiny procedure rules, the representative of the Councillors calling-in the decision, Councillor Angold Stephens, outlined their concerns, which were summarised in the call-in notification. He noted that the District was a mix of the urban and rural, with the south being the most densely populated part. The old London County Council had built the estate with green spaces to act as ‘lungs’. This was valued by the residents and now these sites are under consideration for further development. Why were these sites chosen to the exclusion of any other sites in the District?

The Housing Portfolio Holder, Councillor Stallan, replied that it was important to review land in Council ownership for possible development. The Council has now received the East of England Plan and are starting work on the core strategy to meet its requirements. A number of sites across the District had been considered and rejected and were listed in appendix 6 of the report, which, unfortunately, was not published. Only the most suitable sites were identified and not because they were in Loughton. No decisions had been made as yet; Planning Officers will look at each opportunity presented, individually. Other landowners in the district also have submitted areas for consideration, and these will be put into a report. He noted that the District as a whole has responsibility for providing suitable housing. He understood the local member’s concerns, the sensitivity about wildlife sites and the importance of ‘green lungs’. He concluded that Loughton had not been singled out and that no final decisions have been made as yet.

Councillor Angold-Stephens replied that it was a complex issue and it was bound to be misconstrued by the public. They were deeply suspicious as to why the estate was chosen and why the report was published during the holiday period. It makes it look as though Loughton had been singled out.

Councillor Stallan agreed with the perception about when the Housing Portfolio Report was published, but he had no control over this.

Councillor Angold-Stephens asked:

• If everywhere else playing fields were being kept, why not in Debden and Loughton?
• If North Weald Airfield may be able to take some houses?
• Is the Portfolio Holder prepared to publish his reasons for choosing these sites?

Councillor Stallan replied that appendix 6 showed the Council owned sites not proposed for development, which were considered by officers and discarded. The reasons could be published if required.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

(Chairman of the Constitution and Members Services Standing Panel / Lead Officer) to consider the attached report.

The Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel, Councillor Mrs McEwen introduced the Panel’s report on the Government Consultation Document – moving the date of the local elections to the same date as European Elections. The Government had published a consultation document on the desirability of synchronising the County and European elections in 2009. Under the Government’s plan, both elections would be held on 4 June 2009, which would necessitate the County Council elections being deferred from 7 May 2009. This would be similar to the arrangements made in 2004.

The Panel had received a written objection from Councillor Murray and the Panel was not unanimous in their response to these proposals. Three members were opposed to the two elections being held together.  They felt that the County Council election would be overshadowed by the European.

Councillor Mrs Whitehouse said that the Liberal Democrat Group was also opposed to combining the two elections, as the local council elections always get sidelined.

The Assistant to the Chief Executive reminded the meeting that consultation was still open to the National Parties.

            RESOLVED:

                        (1)        That this Council supports the Government's proposals as outlined in the consultation document for deferring the date of the 2009 County Council elections until 4 June 2009, the same day as the election to the European Parliament subject to the following conditions:

                        (a)        clarification of the requirement for 2 separate poll cards;

                        (b)        advice to Returning Officers on ways in which the ballots for the two elections should be kept separate including distinctively coloured ballot papers;

                        (c)        advice to Returning Officers on how to avoid confusion among voters concerning the two kinds of ballots which was seen at the 2007 elections to the Scottish Parliament;

                        (d)        the importance of prior publicity aimed at voters; and

                        (e)        clear advice on the position of foreign nationals resident in the U.K.

            (2)        That the Government consultation document on weekend voting be considered by the Scrutiny Panel.

(Chairman of the Constitution and Members Services Standing Panel / Lead Officer) to consider the attached report.

The Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel, Councillor Mrs McEwen introduced the Panel’s report on their view of the May 2008 election. The Committee noted that the layout at the count had been improved, but could still be bettered; the count venue had improved with the use of ‘bus stop’ type signs to make it clear where each ward is being counted. It may be that Theydon Bois village hall would now be useable with these improvements. Timing on the count was also discussed, whether to count at the close of poll or on the following day.

            RESOLVED:

That the report to the Panel reviewing the elections held on 1 May 2008 and the matters raised by the Panel were noted.

(Deputy Chief Executive) to consider the attached report.

The Deputy Chief Executive introduced the report on pre-meeting preparation for the Committee. This came about from the number from presentations that the committee receive and concerns were expressed about how they could prepare for any upcoming presentations to maximise the benefit.

Councillor Mrs Whitehouse said this discussion was more appropriate for a training session and not a public meeting. She noted that any future presentations are already publicised to all members. Members needed training every year on how to question and there should be a role for the public. She proposed that this be deferred to the proposed Overview and Scrutiny Review, where we can consider it depth. Councillor Jacobs seconded this proposal.

Councillor Haigh agreed with Councillor Mrs Whitehouse and said that they should look at the function of scrutiny and not just receive slick presentations. They needed to hold people to account.

RESOLVED:

That this report be deferred, and be considered at the proposed Overview and Scrutiny review in January 2009.

(a)               Updated Schedule

The Committee are asked to note the updated schedule.

(b)        Reserve Programme

A reserve list of scrutiny topics is required to ensure that the work flow of OSC is continuous.

OSC will ‘pull out’ items from the list and allocate them accordingly once space becomes available in the work plan following the completion of existing reviews.

Members can put forward any further suggestions for inclusion in the reserve list either during the meeting or at a later date.

Existing review items will be dealt with first, and then time will be allocated to the items contained in the reserve work plan.

Any space within the work plan is filled on an ongoing basis.

Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Councillor Murray expressed concern that the new principal of the Epping Forest College would be new in his post and would not have had sufficient time to get a feel of the job to address the Committee in September. Councillor Cohen also expressed a desire that the presentation be deferred to a later date.

AGREED that the review of the Epping Forest College is moved from the 29 September meeting to the 11 December meeting, to give the new principal time to settle into his job.

AGREED to invite County Portfolio Holder to the January 2009 meeting, to talk to the Committee about the rural bus services.

AGREED that a report be brought to the next meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee laying out proposals on how the O&S review would be organised. Covering aspects such as, should it be handled solely by the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel, should a Task and Finish Panel be set up or should a one off Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting be devoted solely this review.

Councillor Stallan asked that the a review of the publication and distribution of the Portfolio Holders decisions be included in this review. The Assistant to the Chief Executive assured  the councillor that in future officers would make suitable arrangements.

Finance and Performance Management Standing Panel

A short report from the Chairman of the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Standing Panel was tabled summarising the items considered by that Panel in its first two meetings.

RECOMMENDATION:

To consider any items to be raised by the Chairman at the Cabinet meeting on 1 September 2008.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). Under the Overview and Scrutiny rules the Committee is required to scrutinise proposed decisions of the Executive. The Chairman is also required to report on such discussions to the Cabinet.

The Committee is asked to consider the 1 September 2008 Cabinet agenda (previously circulated) to see whether there are any items that they wished to be raised at the Cabinet meeting.

Councillor Angold-Stephens wanted clarification, that under item 16 of the Cabinet agenda, ‘Digital upgrading of communal TV aerial distribution systems’ – if they had considered installing cable as a suitable alternative?