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:

“This meeting will be webcast live to the Internet and will be archived for later viewing. Copies of recordings may be made available on request.

By entering the chamber’s lower seating area you consenting to becoming part of the webcast.

If you wish to avoid being filmed you should move to the public gallery or speak to the webcasting officer”

The Chairman reminded everyone present that the meeting would be broadcast live to 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 noted that Councillor P Spencer had substituted for Councillor Mrs A Haigh, Councillor G Pritchard had substituted for Councillor M Colling, Councillor K Chana had substituted for Councillor A Green and that Councillor Mrs M McEwen had substituted for Councillor G Mohindra.

(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.

Councillor J Knapman declared a personal interest in item 7 of the agenda by virtue of being a County Council member on their Health Scrutiny Panel.

Councillor Mrs Wagland declared a personal interest in item 6 of the agenda by virtue of being a lawyer that dealt with this type of issues.

Councillor D Jacobs declared a personal interest in item 6 of the agenda.

Councillor D Stallan declared a personal interest in item 6 of the agenda by virtue of his employment.

Councillor C Whitbread declared a personal interest in item 6 of the agenda by virtue of being a business owner in Epping.

Decisions required:

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 December 2009.

            RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 17 December 2009 be agreed.

To receive a short presentation from Sue Laidler, team leader at the Valuation Office for our District. This was requested at the last meeting by the committee after reviewing the report on the Overview and Scrutiny Sub-committee on Debt Management.

The Chairman welcomed David Jackson, the District Valuation Officer for the East Anglian region. He said his was a statutory role under the Finance Act of 1988. His office maintained a rating list  of the rateable values applied to all non-domestic property, that is, the open market rental value of each property. The Committee noted that there were 111,000 properties in the East Anglian area. If needed, there was also an appeals procedure that could be undertaken.

The meeting was opened up for questions from attending Councillors and members of the public.

Q:        Non Domestic Rates (NDR)  have been doubled in Queens Road, Buckhurst Hill due to a recent appeal. Were there mistakes made in the initial assessment?

A:         We have a duty to maintain a list that is fair and accurate for everybody. We request information from as many businesses as we can, but sometimes have difficulties in getting the information we need. Someone did appeal and our subsequent investigations revealed that the wrong value had been applied.

Q:        Would not ‘natural justice’ dictate that the charges be increased in the next year and not immediately.

A.                              We were reliant on information being returned to the valuation office. Once a problem had been identified we were bound to put it right to be fair.

Q:        Is your role one of an expert witness in these matters?

A:         I am totally impartial, it is not a question of getting the highest  rate for an area.

Q:        What would one of your officers say to a shopkeeper about the purpose of his visit?

A:         We do not give our staff a script, although all staff are trained and should explain why they are at the premises.

Q:        Some officers start by saying that they have come to put the traders rates up.

A:         This statement should not compromise their impartiality, however, they should not say things like that.

Q:        Do you explain to shopkeepers that they can provide their own evidence. The Waitrose effect tends to apply to all shopkeepers, a newsagent had had a recent 15% increase. They are not happy that you are acting impartially. Transitional arrangements would ease some of the burden of this increase.

A:         The Buckhurst Hill increase was evidence based and will be reviewed again when we review the district again. Leaflets and notices went out to all shopkeepers explaining their right of appeal and the appropriate cut off  dates etc.

Q:        Traders in Ongar have a difficult time. Is any account taken of the size and viability of a shopping precint? A local trader had advised that bills are doubling in Ongar in comparison to Croydon in London.

A:         Rateable value applied to Ongar is based on evidence available to us. We can review the  the valuation, such things as road works can effect the rateable value. Shopkeepers can appeal for a reduction on those grounds.

Q:        It seems that if a small business becomes larger by opening another branch then they can be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

To consider the attached preliminary report.

The Senior Democratic Services Officer, Simon Hill introduced the report on the consultation document on the North East London Health Services. The Committee noted that at their upcoming meeting in March they would be considering this consultation paper. They should consider the approach they should take and scope out the questions they should ask. They noted that County Councillor Chris Pond should be invited and that they consider if any one else needed to be invited and if it should be held in the South of the District.

Some of the aspects the committee wanted to question were:

• Parking at Whipps Cross Hospital;
• Why concentrate acute services at the Royal London and Queens;
• Why withdraw A&E and maternity services from some sites;
• What would be the future usage of King Georges Hospital;
• Concerns about the A&E department being removed from King George’s Hospital;
• Has Essex Ambulance Services been involved in effective journey mapping to ensure that for emergency calls and transfers that there is no greater journey time;
• Needed to clarify what services were going to Queens;
• It may also mean that people from Loughton would come up to the Princess Alexendra, do they have a view of what this would mean for them;
• Concerns were raised about the loss of surgery for children at Whipps Cross, and where would people go in emergencies;
• What steps were being taken to consult Epping Forest residents.

It was also agreed that a member of the review team be invited to the meeting; John Carr and Judy Harkus from the West Essex Link Group; and Councillor Brian Sandler.

On consideration of the venue the committee decided that it should not be moved to the South of the District.

            RESOLVED:

(1)               That the scope of questions be agreed as set out above.

(2)               That apart from the West Essex PCT, the following people and organisations should also be asked to the meeting: Councillor Chris Pond, members from the North East London Review Team, John Carr and Judy Harkus from the West Essex Link Group, and Councillor B Sandler.

(3)               That the meeting be held at the Civic Offices, Epping.

(Director of Finance and ICT) to consider the draft  Portfolio Holder Budgets report. The full draft budgets were considered in detail at the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Standing Panel on 12 January 2010 and at the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee on 25 January 2010.

(Report to follow)

The Committee considered the recommendations of the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee and the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Panel on the Council’s budget for 2010/11.

The Chairman of the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Standing Panel, Councillor Jacobs, reported back on what their Panel had discussed and noted that they were in broad agreement with the draft budget as presented to them.

Councillor Whitbread, the Chairman of the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee reported back on their deliberations on the budget. They noted that this was difficult times as they were not sure if the country was out of the recession as yet and would be unsure of government funding until after the election. The cabinet were proposing the lowest Council Tax increase in at least 10 years of 1.5%, a lower figure than 2.5% contained in the draft budget considered by the Scrutiny Panel.

The Committee welcomed the proposed new Council Tax rate and that the Council would be maintaining frontline services in difficult times. They also welcomed the fact that the Council’s reserves would be maintained, especially as the rating officer had suggested that the local shopkeepers may look to this council under the hardship rules.

In view of the revised Council Tax the Director of Finance and ICT made some amendments to some figures in the recommendations in the Budget report.

            RESOLVED:

That on consideration of the budget report and the deliberations of the Finance and Performance Cabinet Committee and the Scrutiny Standing Panel the Overview and Scrutiny Committee endorsed the Budget and the revised 1.5% Council tax rate.

(Chairman / Lead Officer) To receive the final report from the Pitt Review on Flooding Task and Finish Panel.

On Consideration of the concluding report of the Pitt Review Task and Finish Panel the Committee agreed to disband the Panel and to re-establish it once clear guidance had been received from Government and Essex County Council.

            RESOLVED:

(1)        That the work of the Pitt Review Task & Finish Panel to date was noted;

(2)        That due to the continuing uncertainty surrounding the Flood and Water Management Bill, which prevents the Panel from drawing meaningful conclusions and making recommendations at this time, the Panel is to be wound up; and

(3)        That consideration to be given to re-establishing the Pitt Review Task & Finish Panel once the Flood and Water Management Bill has been introduced and clear guidance from Government and Essex County Council was forthcoming.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) To receive a concluding report on the 2008 district wide transport survey.

The Committee noted the ongoing work undertaken by Essex County Council and the LSP since the district transport survey was completed. The 381 replies were passed onto the Transport Liaison Manager at Essex County Council who analysed the results. They have since incorporated the results into their work programme. They have also liaised with Epping Forest LSP who are also currently working towards a sustainable community strategy which should cover effective and accessible public transport.

The Committee asked that this item be kept on the Committee’s work programme so that the counties and the LSP’s ongoing work on local transport could be monitored.

            RESOLVED:

            That the response and ongoing work to the Rural Transport Survey be noted.

(Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel) to consider the attached report.

Councillor Mrs McEwen introduced the annual review of Contract Standing Orders (2009/10). The Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel recently reviewed the work of a cross directorate working party of officers that reviewed the contract standing orders with the view of ensuring that these documents are up to date and reflect current statutory requirements and operational needs.

The Committee noted that the number of significant changes proposed were relatively limited in number and the remainder were minor drafting changes relating to post titles, changes in responsibilities and updating for new legal requirements.

A summary of the more significant changes is given below:

            (a)       Tender and Bid Rigging

            The new wording at the top of page L2 of the CSO's reflects a recent national investigation by the Office of Fair Trading into possible collusion and rigging of tenders and bids.  The additional wording is designed to alert all officers involved in tendering procedures to be alert as to any unusual circumstances which arise in this regard.  This statement is supported by further advice to officers via the Council’s intranet.

            (b)       CSO 1(9) (Compliance – Combination of Orders)

            The amendment to this CSO is to extend the period from one to four years in determining the value of orders which can be combined into one contract.  The period has been extended to four years to comply with EU Regulations.

            (c)       CSO 1(10) (Compliance – Single Contractor Limits)

            The final sentence in this CSO is new and relates to Chief Officers being required to have regard to the overall cost of contracts in deciding whether the threshold amount for awards of contracts to a single contractor has been exceeded.  Such an assessment must now include management costs and any costs which extend over longer than a single financial year.  This is included for clarification.

            (d)       CSO 1(12) (Compliance – Procurement Hub)

            The only change to this CSO is in the first sentence by the removal of “framework” after “Essex Procurement Hub”.  The word “framework” appears to give the impression that procurement similar, but not part of, the Procurement Hub need not be subject to CSO's or the Hub itself.  This is not the case.  CSO's will only apply to any procurement method which is not specifically part of the hub procedures.

            (e)       CSO 6(4)(a) (Tender Invitations - £50,000+)

            This paragraph has been amended to refer to five contractors selected from Constructionline.  Previously the paragraph referred to four contractors.  The change has been made to accord with EU Regulations.

            (f)        CSO 8(1) (Open Tendering)

            The final sentence of this CSO is new.  It is designed to clarify that when the open tendering method is adopted all the tenders received must be reviewed in accordance with EU Regulations.  However many tenders are received, all must be properly assessed against the tender specification.  There can be no filtering process to reduce the number which are examined.

            (g)       CSO 10(2)(ii) (Contractor Selection - £50,000+)

            Previously this CSO required that, in respect of contracts in excess of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

(a)               To consider the updated work programme

The current Overview and Scrutiny work programme is attached for information.

(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, then time will be allocated to the items contained in the reserve work plan.

(i)   The request below has come in from Councillor Jon Whitehouse. The committee is asked to consider the proposal and decide if  this should be looked at by this Committee or passed onto a Standing Panel. In this case the Safer Cleaner Greener Panel would be the most appropriate.

“In accordance with the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure rules I am giving written notice that I wish an item on the recent waste collection problems to be included on the agenda of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. I think that everyone accepts that very bad weather inevitably causes disruption but there are probably some lessons to learn including about provision of information over the Christmas period. I note from Mrs Sartin's statement made at the Cabinet meeting on Monday 4^th January, that there will be a review and I think members of Overview and Scrutiny should have some input into this.

Obviously I don't want to distract officers from dealing with getting the service back to normal, so I am happy for implementation of this request to be postponed until normal service has been resumed (especially given the recent snowfall).

It may be appropriate for Overview and Scrutiny to discuss the questions it wants answered at its 28 January meeting and then for a fuller report to come to a later meeting or to the Safer, Cleaner, Greener Standing Scrutiny Panel.”

(a)        Work Programme

Overview and Scrutiny Committee

The Senior Democratic Officer took the Committee through their current work programme. They noted that:

• The draft annual report would go to their next meeting and that it would have a change of format;
• That the Work Programme had mostly been covered this year;
• Item 10, review of Epping Forest College and item 15, review of secondary and primary education in the District was premature this year and would be kept on the work programme for next year.

The Customer and Member Services Standing Panel

Councillor Mrs McEwen updated the Committee on her Panel’s work.  They noted that the Panel had a lot of items coming to their March meeting such as the annual review of officer delegation; review of the Licensing Committee membership; review of the area plans sub-committees; review of the constitution of the Audit and Governance Committee; review of the Housing Appeals Panel and the cancellation of meetings due to inclement weather.

Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Panel

Councillor Pritchard updated the Committee on his Panel’s upcoming work. They noted that the February meeting would be devoted to Crime and Disorder and that the CCTV Policy would be going to the April meeting.

Planning Services Standing Panel

Councillor Mrs Wagland reported on her Committee’s work programme saying that since the November 2009 meeting, members had requested that the Planning Services staffing structure be made available to all members through the Bulletin, this has now been done.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had received reports from the Panel recommending the creation of a new Senior Enforcement Officer post; also recommendations regarding the Essex County Council Minerals Development Document. It was felt that the consultation document was unsuitable. The Panel had also discussed the EERA Consultation – 2031 Scenarios for Housing and Economic Growth, with members making an additional recommendation for a fifth scenario dealing with the assessment of infrastructure provision in terms of implications for housing and economic growth.

At the January 2010 meeting of the Panel, members considered the updated Best Value Review. Panel members requested additional information but recommended that it be re-submitted to the Panel with benchmarking detail. The Panel had also requested a report, previously put before the Constitutional and Member Services Panel, regarding Officer Delegation in respect of Comments by Town and Parish Councils. The members recommended that no change be made to officer delegation.

Further additional work is needed on the Panel’s Terms of Reference. The Panel’s Work Programme indicated that there would be further reports on Enforcement and the possibilities of sharing Building Control Services with other councils.

Finance and Performance Management Standing Panel

Councillor Jacobs updated the Committee on what his Panel had been doing. At their last meeting they had received a presentation from the Comprehensive Area Assessment Lead at the Audit Commission. He spoke about the Organisational Assessment carried out on this Council at the end of last year. The Panel also looked at the Key Priority objectives for 2009/10 and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

RECOMMENDATION:

To consider any items to be raised by the Chairman at the Cabinet meeting on 1 February 2010.

(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 February 2010 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 no business to report to the Cabinet.