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 Mrs C Pond was substituting for Councillor K Angold-Stephens (Vice Chairman) and Councillor K Chana was substituting for Councillor B Rolfe.

(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.

There were no declarations of interest made pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct.

Decisions required:

To confirm the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 28 August 2008.

Resolved:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 28 August 2008 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record subject to the following amendments:

(a)       the first sentence of the 20^th paragraph of minute 28 (Call-in – “Call for Sites” Council-owned land to be submitted for consideration as future residential land) to read “Councillor Mrs Richardson asked when would the complete list be available and why a covenant would be a barrier to consideration of Ongar school playing field?”; and

(b)       the first sentence of the 21^st paragraph of minute 28 to read: “Councillor Mrs Richardson said she was contacted two years ago by a resident who had met a private building firm representative going around measuring up.”

The Director of Corporate Support Services, Ms C O’Boyle, presented a report to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee regarding “The Making and Enforcement of Byelaws – Consultation.” In April 2006 a discussion paper was issued by the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister entitled “Local Authority Byelaws in England: Procedure for Making, Confirming and Enforcing Byelaws.” The conclusions arising from this discussion paper were that it was not always effective for central government to be involved in confirming byelaws which dealt with local matters. There had been much support for enforcement of byelaws through a fixed penalty mechanism rather than prosecution through the Magistrate’s Court.

Following on from this, the Department for Communities and Local Government was seeking views from local authorities involved in the byelaw making process on specific proposals. The deadline response to the consultation paper was 20 November 2008.

It was proposed that the Director of Corporate Support Services reply to the questions in the consultation paper after feedback from the members. To this end, an item had been put in the Bulletin with the eight questions listed and an appropriate answer.

RESOLVED:

That, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee members considered and commented directly to the Director of Corporate Support Services on the proposed responses to the questions posed in the attached consultation paper "Communities in Control: Real People, Real Power: The Making and Enforcement of Byelaws".

To receive a presentation on Health and Inequalities by Alison Corrie, Director of Public Health, West Essex Primary Care Trust.

A covering report with background papers are attached to this agenda.

Ms Alison Cowie, Director of Public Health, West Essex Primary Care Trust, gave a presentation to the Committee on the Health Profile of the Epping Forest District. Accompanying Ms Cowie was Ms Anurita Rohilla, Acting Localities Director of the Primary Care Trust.

Ms Cowie began by outlining the general picture of health in the district. There were established health patterns for a variety of reasons.

The district was diverse, the population being generally older The number of 15 – 34 year olds in the district was lower than the national average, This maybe because younger people had moved out of the area, perhaps to go to university, and on returning had then found that the cost of living in the area was too high and had not moved back. There was a smaller than average Black and Minority ethnic community. The largest group within this being Black and Asian, 9%, who were concentrated in the south of the district. Epping Forest District was generally more affluent than many of its neighbours, for example Harlow, but despite this, there were pockets of deprivation within Waltham Abbey and Loughton, which were as deprived as Harlow. There were six small areas in Essex which had been designated as most deprived, one of these was Loughton Broadway ward.

Ms A Cowie then went on to inform the Committee that life expectancy in Epping Forest District for males and females was above average and was increasing year by year. However, across Essex, amongst the areas with the shorter life expectancy was Waltham Abbey and Limes Farm. The death rates in the District from all causes was below the national average and falling, however, Waltham Abbey had the highest mortality rate in Essex. Cancer rates were falling across the district, but again, there were particular small areas where rates were higher, smoking being the biggest cause of death.

There were various methods of closing the health divide, however it was argued that stop smoking campaigns and general improvements to health provision would not in themselves reduce underlying health inequalities. The environment in which people live, their lifestyle and general behaviour required closer attention.

Following the presentation, the members discussed the issues raised. Councillor Mrs R Gadsby expressed her alarm at the statistics in the presentation which concerned the Waltham Abbey area. A strong message needed to go out on stopping smoking. Ms A Cowie said that Waltham Abbey and Harlow had emerged as health improvement priority areas. Survey work had shown that men in Harlow often smoked in response to personal problems and quality of life issues. Therefore smoking cessation was made more difficult.

Members requested a copy of the coloured maps from the presentation, Ms A Cowie said she would make the maps available to members.

Members asked how it was possible for a strategic direction to be undertaken in dealing with deprivation if there were different agencies delivering the same types of service. Ms A Cowie said the Local Strategic Partnership  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

(Constitution and Members Service Standing Panel) To consider the attached report.

Councillor Mrs M McEwen, Chairman of the Constitutional Affairs and Members’ Services Panel, presented a report to the Committee on the Government Consultation regarding Weekend Voting which had been considered at the Panel’s meeting on 8 September 2008. Councillor Mrs M McEwen advised the Committee that the Panel’s answers to the consultation had already been submitted to the Government, in advance of the Government’s 26 September 2008 deadline. This report would have been put before the Overview and Scrutiny Committee sooner, but the Committee’s meeting in late September had been cancelled. Councillor Mrs M McEwen informed the Committee that the Panel had not agreed with the concept of Weekend Voting.

RESOLVED:

That, the views expressed by the Constitutional Affairs and Members’ Services Scrutiny Standing Panel, in respect of the Government Consultation Document submitted to the Ministry of Justice in line with its deadline of 26 September 2008, be noted and agreed.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) to consider the attached report.

The Policy and Research Officer, Mr C Overend, presented a report to the Committee regarding the Government Consultation White Paper “Communities in Control: Real People, Real Power.” The White Paper had been published in July 2008 and set out a range of policies with a view to returning power to local communities. It had agreed a series of consultation papers covering the following aspects:

• Improving Local Accountability;

• Making and Enforcing Byelaws;

• A Revised Code of Conduct for Members;

• Mayors;

• Time-off Entitlements; and

• Local Government Publicity.

The paper covered the development and strengthening of Overview and Scrutiny, the new powers holding local officers to account and the facilitating of the Councillor’s work. The focus of the paper was on ways of improving participation for local people in making decisions and to improve the representation of communities.

The specific areas which needed comments and the Committee’s response were as follows:

(a)        Developing and strengthening Overview and Scrutiny through the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health 2007 Act particularly in relation to the LAA and the delivery of LAA improvement targets.

Committee Response – The Committee were supportive of developing and strengthening Overview and Scrutiny, particularly in relation to the review of Local Area Agreements (LAA) and delivery of LAA improvement targets.

(b)        Do you agree with the concept of being able to require information from partner authorities/organisations?

Committee Response – The Committee agreed with the concept of being able to require information from partner authorities and organisations and that this should work both ways, for example, in a two tier arrangement where the District and Borough Councils were able to require information from County and vice versa.

(c)        Which information in published scrutiny reports and recommendations should be exempt or confidential?

Committee Response – The Committee felt that scrutiny reports and recommendations should only be exempt or confidential only when there were clear reasons for that being the case, otherwise they should be discussed in the public domain.

The following two questions (d) and (e), were taken together.

(d)        Do you agree with the idea of joint County and District Overview and Scrutiny Committees? Should these be “Task and Finish” or cover issues on an ongoing basis? If so, which issues? What issues would need to be considered as part of any such arrangements?

(e)        Do you agree with the proposal to enable District Scrutiny Committees to review the delivery of LAA targets?

Committee Response – The Panel felt that these issues should be left as they were. The District Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee and panels can ask County Council representatives to its meetings to answer questions, but only liaison was feasible rather that a joint initiative. The Deputy Chief Executive, Mr D Macnab advised that the next Overview and Scrutiny Committee was discussing LAA partnerships.

(f)                 How could the visibility of the scrutiny function be increased?

Committee Response – The Overview and Scrutiny Committee was regularly webcast and more use in general could be made of webcasting facilities  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development) To consider the attached final report of last years Value for Money in Planning Task and Finish Panel.

This item replaces the previous supplementary agenda sent to members. It includes all the documents referred to in the final report of the Panel as Appendices.

Councillor K Chana, Vice Chairman of the Planning Services Scrutiny Standing Panel, presented the report of the Task and Finish Panel, concerning value for money within Planning Services.

The Finance and Performance Management Panel had prompted the setting up of a Task and Finish Panel for consideration of value for money and performance issues within Planning services. This had been because of a number of decisions of the Council concerning the expending of resources in the 2005 re-structure, the Panel was tasked, in particular, with examining ICT improvements and in dealing with a backlog of planning applications.

The Task and Finish Panel had commenced its work in October 2007 with the continuing work carried forward into the Standing Scrutiny Panel for Planning Services when it was set up in the current municipal year. The Panel had chosen to update a 2001 Best Value Review of the Development Control functions. That had been done in such a way that it ensured there was a complete time series of data which was being revised annually.

A key finding of the Panel was that planning provided value for money in its development control functions in comparison with other council planning services. The Standing Panel had continued to scrutinise other services provided by this Directorate within its agreed terms of reference. However the Directorate continued to face major challenges, a major one being delivery of a sound Local Development Framework. Another challenge was the Gypsy and Traveller Consultation.

The Directorate also faced challenges such as recruitment and retention of staff. This was seen as an opportune moment to start developing an improvement plan for the Directorate, which would help focus priorities for the next eighteen months. Such an Improvement Plan was a good way of showing a present position and guiding the work of the Directorate in that time. A key part of the original best value ethos was securing continuous improvement. The Planning Services Scrutiny Panel were asked to develop such a plan and add it to that Panel’s Terms of Reference.

The Planning Sub-Committees were now meeting every three weeks which had put the District Council within the top quartile.

RESOLVED:

(1).       That, the conclusions and recommendations contained within the report be agreed; and

(2).       That, the Planning Services Standing Panel develop an Improvement Plan for the Planning Directorate.

To consider the attached reports.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee carried out its six month review of the Standing and Task and Finish Panels

(a)        Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Item (6)            North West Essex PCT – Proposal for Joint Scrutiny Review

Harlow Council members had expressed an interest in undertaking a piece of health scrutiny jointly with Uttlesford and Epping Forest.

The report was being made to each of the three authorities’ scrutiny committees, confirming that they wished to pursue the joint health scrutiny idea and sought ideas for topics for the review and appoint members to attend meetings.

Item (7)            District Transport in Rural Areas

The survey on district transport had been completed and sent to the County Council for action. The Committee would receive a report after the County Council had considered the survey findings. This item was linked to item 14 of the six month review, regarding the Essex County Council Portfolio Holder for Highways and Transportation, Councillor N Hume coming to the Committee in January 2009 to speak on rural bus services. It was felt useful that the County Council’s Portfolio Holder should comment on the results of the survey and the County Council’s response to it.

Item (8)            Scrutiny of Epping Forest Local Strategic Partnership – Chairman and Member Level EFDC representatives.

This item was scheduled for the January 2009 meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. However the Deputy Chief Executive, Mr D Macnab, stated that the re-structuring of the Board was being discussed at the next LSP Board meeting on 18 December 2008. It was unlikely that the recommendations from that meeting would be ready for the next Overview and Scrutiny meeting. They should go before the March 2009 meeting.

Item (11)          The Review of Overview and Scrutiny in January 2009

The Committee felt that Item 11 on the work programme of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee should be put before the Constitutional Affairs and Members Services Panel.

AGREED:

That, the Review of Overview and Scrutiny, be referred to the Constitutional Affairs and Members’ Services Panel.

(b)       Housing Standing Panel

No reports or comments were made.

(c)        Constitutional and Members Services Scrutiny Standing Panel

The Panel’s Chairman, Councillor Mrs M McEwen told the Panel that at its meeting on 3 November 2008, Civic Ceremonial functions had been discussed. However they required a further meeting to take place on 4 December 2008 to conclude their discussions on this issue.

(d)       Safer, Cleaner, Greener Standing Panel

The Committee received a verbal report from Councillor M Colling, the Chairman of the Safer, Cleaner, Greener Standing Panel, on the Panel’s recent work.

The 2 September 2008 meeting of the Panel had discussed the Department of Trade’s consultation on the Traffic Management Act 2004 and its application for dropped kerbs. The Panel had resolved that it wanted to use the powers without the need for signs and lines, this would bring the district in line with existing London powers.

The Panel had considered the Government’s Green paper “From the Neighbourhood to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

            RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee consider and comment on the minutes of the Leisure Task and Finish Panel and the report to the Cabinet.

(Leisure Task and Finish Panel) The Leisure Task and Finish Panel was asked to consider the feasibility of a proposal whereby it might be possible to transfer some of the facilities from the Waltham Abbey Sports Centre, namely the sports hall and changing facilities, to the site of the Waltham Abbey Swimming Pool, a facility owned by this Council and managed by SLM.

The Task and Finish Panel considered this at their meeting on 23 September 2008 and the minutes are attached for information. The outcome was that a report (also attached) would be made to the Cabinet via the Overview and Scrutiny Committee asking for any O&S comments to be passed on to the Cabinet at its 10^th November meeting . 

Councillor Mrs R Gadsby, Chairman of the Leisure Task and Finish Panel, informed the Committee that at its meeting on 23 September 2008, it had been asked to consider the feasibility of a proposal whereby it was possible to transfer some of the facilities from the Waltham Abbey Sports Centre, namely the sports hall and changing facilities, to the site of the Waltham Abbey Swimming Pool, a facility owned by the District Council and managed by SLM. The Panel had agreed that officers should go forward with a feasibility proposal for the Cabinet’s consideration at its forthcoming meeting on the 10 November 2008.

RESOLVED:

That, the report of the Leisure Task and Finish Panel concerning the transfer of some facilities from Waltham Abbey Sports Centre to Waltham Abbey Swimming Pool be forwarded to the Cabinet for approval.

            Recommendation:

To appoint a representative onto a County Task and Finish Panel looking at West Essex Health Services.

Essex County Council has established a joint Health/NHS Overview and Scrutiny Committee Commissioning of Health Services in West Essex Task and Finish Panel. They have asked this Council to appoint a representative to sit on this Panel.

The Task and Finish Panel was established after concerns had been raised by the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee regarding the provision of GP services in West Essex relating to housing growth, development and capacity, particularly in light of recent closure of a branch surgery and proposal to relocate a surgery. In April 2008, the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee proposed a review to look at the strategic commissioning of primary care services, particularly in light of housing growth, development and capacity to ensure robust plans and infrastructure are in place.

The First meeting of this panel was held on Thursday 23 November. This was attended by the Deputy Chief Executive and Councillor Morgan.

North West Essex PCT have also proposed a Joint Scrutiny Review and a preliminary meeting has been scheduled on 3^rd November for officers of Uttlesford, Harlow and Epping Forest Councils. Any issues raised at this meeting will be reported verbaly to the Committee.

Essex County Council’s joint Health/NHS Overview and Scrutiny Committee had established a Commissioning of Health Services in West Essex Task and Finish Panel. The County Council had asked the District Council to appoint a representative to sit on the Panel.

The Task and Finish Panel had been established after concerns had been raised by the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee regarding the provision of GP services in West Essex relating to housing growth, development and capacity, particularly in the light of the recent closure of a branch surgery and proposals to relocate a surgery. In April 2008, the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee had proposed a review to look at the strategic commissioning of primary care services, particularly in the light of housing growth, development and capacity ensuring robust plans and infrastructure were in place.

The first meeting of the Panel was held on 23 October 2008. This had been attended by the Deputy Chief Executive and Councillor R Morgan.

RESOLVED:

That, the Full Council be asked to appoint an Epping Forest District Council representative to the County Health Task and Finish Panel be recommended to Full Council.

Recommendation:

To consider any items to be raised by the Chairman at the Cabinet meeting on 10 November 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 10 November 2008 Cabinet agenda (previously circulated) to see whether there are any items that they wished to be raised at the Cabinet meeting.

It was noted that there was nothing to report to the Cabinet.

To receive the attached report.

The Chairman of the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Panel, Councillor D Jacobs, presented a progress report to the Committee on the Panel’s recent work. At its meeting on 20 October 2008, the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Panel considered proposed targets for the Council’s national Indicators and Local Performance Indicators for 2008/09, and performance against the indicators for the first quarter of the year. Consideration of these matters had been deferred from the previous meeting to allow for the compilation of additional detail in relation to the indicators, particularly in regard to expanded descriptions and explanations of the purpose of each indicator, and commentaries from the relevant director in support of the proposed target for the current year and actual first quarter performance.

The Scrutiny Panel was considering second quarter performance against the Council’s Key Performance Indicators for 2008/09 at its meeting on 11 November 2008. The Key Performance Indicators focused improvement on key areas and set to achieve comparable performance with that of the top performing local authorities. For 2008/09, the Cabinet had set a target for at least 75% to achieve target performance by the end of the year.

At its meeting on 11 November 2008, the Scrutiny Panel would also consider the second quarter financial monitoring report, and details of the Council’s proposed fees and charges for 2009/10. The Panel was reviewing the Capital Programme for 2008/09, and the outcomes arising from the completion of the first Local Area Agreement for Essex.

The Scrutiny Panel had established a sub-group for considering the Council’s latest Value for Money Analysis Tool, and to make recommendations for further action to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The sub-group comprised Councillors D Jacobs, G Mohindra and A Watts, they were meeting on 11 November 2008 to consider the Value for Money Analysis Tool. At that meeting directors would make a brief presentation on recent performance and cost comparison. The Analysis Tool had been updated to reflect audited performance information for 2007/08.