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 Mrs S Jones had substituted for Councillor Mrs R Gadsby and Councillor Mrs McEwen for Councillor G Mohindra.

Decisions Required:

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 1 June 2010.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 1 June 2010 be agreed.

(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.

(i)         Councillor D Stallan declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 as he was a member of the Cabinet and the Portfolio Holder for this item. However, he had determined that his interest was not prejudicial as he was attending the meeting to present the original decision and to answer questions as he was required to do under the Council’s rules for call-in of executive decisions. There were no mobile home sites in his ward and he had no other interests in this item.

(ii)        Councillors Ms S Stavrou, Mrs M Sartin and B Rolfe declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 6 as a member of the Cabinet and because they were present for part of the debate on this item at the Cabinet meeting. They intend to exercise their right under paragraph 12(2) to make representations and give evidence on this matter before withdrawing. They had no other personal or prejudicial interest in this matter.

(iii)       Councillor Mrs P Brooks declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 as she was a resident of a mobile home park and the Chairman of the residents association.

(iv)       Councillors Mrs P Smith, R Bassett, C Whitbread and Mrs D Collins declared personal interests in agenda item 6 as they were members of the Cabinet. However, they had determined that their interests were not prejudicial. They had no other interests in this item.

(v)        Councillor Mrs L Webster declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 as her sister owned a mobile home park in the area. However she was representing her residents in this matter.

(vi)       Councillor J M Whitehouse declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 as he knew someone who lived in a mobile home park.

(vii)      Councillor D Johnson declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 as he was one of the members who had signed the call-in.

(viii)      Councillor Mrs Whitehouse declared a personal interest in agenda item 8 as she was a members of Essex Savers.

To consider a call-in of the Cabinet’s Decision on ‘Adoption of Revised Standard Caravan Site Licence Conditions for Permanent Residential Sites (C-001-2010/11). Call-in papers and report are attached.

The Committee considered the call-in of a decision by the Cabinet of a Housing Portfolio report of the adoption of the Standard Caravan Site Licence Conditions for Permanent Residential Sites in Epping Forest. The call-in referred to the consultation process and the proposed limiting to 1 metre of the height of fences and hedges between park homes.

The lead member of the call-in Councillor Mrs Webster was asked to open the discussion.  She started by saying she was concerned by the impact of the Cabinet’s proposed decision would haveon local mobile home parks. She had visited each park in Waltham Abbey and Abridge.  The homes were owned by the residents; they paid their Council Tax and had the same rights as the rest of the population. The residents took great pride keeping their homes well tended.

She had attended the Cabinet meeting and asked for further consideration of this decision; there was a need to consult all park home owners as insufficient consideration had been taken of the residents need for privacy. Also if their gardens were reduced in size they would make the homes less attractive and harder to sell. Insufficient time had been given to consider the new rules and in hindsight the decision should have been deferred.

She compared the Government’s Model Rules to the proposed EFDC rules. The Model Rules state that that new sites should consider the appropriateness of the new rules. Hedges and fences were an integral part of each home and should be maintained. She felt that this new rule should only apply to new or replacement homes.

Councillor Mrs Webster comments that according to the national body for park homes, there was a lack of clarity about who was responsible for enforcing the conditions on fire, it was not with the local authority; London authorities have nothing about fire conditions in their licences.

Councillor Johnson, a signatory of the call-in, added that he was concerned about the decision. He had read the Building Research Establishment Paper and noticed that they had no evidence that sheds create a hazard to life. It also did not exclude non-combustible fences or sheds. The parks should come under the 2005 fire reform act, so why did EFDC park residents have to conform to these extra rules as well.

The responsible Portfolio Holder, Councillor Stallan was then asked to make his opening statement. He started by saying that the Council was legally obliged to consult with the site owners and specific third parties. All members of the Council had been notified via the Council Bulletin in November 2009 of the consultation exercise and invited to contact officers for further information. A report also went to the Cabinet on 16 November 2009 asking for further staff resources to implement the new licence conditions once agreed and this agenda had been circulated to all members. The licence conditions had not been updated for 30 years and the height of fences and hedges had not been included in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

To receive a presentation from the Local Strategic Partnership Manager, John Houston and the LSP Chairman.

Members should note that for background information, the LSP Annual Report had been published in the Council Bulletin dated 25 June 2010.

The Chairman of One Epping Forest, Councillor Mrs D Collins introduced the annual review of the Epping Forest Local Strategic Partnership (LSP). They have had a good year, doing some good partnership working in the District and had secured external resources to support various schemes. The Epping Forest LSP was also working in concert with the Harlow and Uttlesford LSP.

There was, as always, a need to spend money wisely, especially as half of their funding had been cut and County wanted more than half of their funding back, it was coming up to a time of real financial difficulties. She then handed over to the LSP Manager John Huston.

Mr Houston started by saying that most of the information given tonight could be found in their first annual review of the year 2009/10. He then went on to define the role of the LSP. It brought together all the key public agencies, voluntary and private sector; identified common problems and developed joined up solutions. They wanted this district to be a better place to live in, increase the quality of life and add value to any work being done. Their key role was to act as ambassadors for the District. This last year they streamlined the organisation of the LSP and set up three Task and Finish Panels so that they could move more quickly on certain topics. These were: the credit crunch; improving communications; and developing a new ‘sustainable communities’ strategy’.

An independent review of the effectiveness of the partnership was commissioned and carried out by the East of England Regional Assembly resulting in positive conclusions for the Partnership.

They have also over the year:

• set up a new website;
• changed their logo;
• developed an electronic newsletter;
• have webcast board meetings;
• hosted major consultation events and have also sponsored events;
• they held a seminar on jobs and what was needed locally;

·         produced an introductory leaflet explaining the role and composition of the Board; and

·         had put quarterly articles in ‘Fair’s Fair’.

They were also required to produce a Community Strategy, which is currently out on consultation. This document would set out the big issues for the district and how the partnership could work together to tackle them.

They were looking forward to meeting the challenges of the public sector deficit, help agencies work better together and make efficiency savings.

The Chairman then opened the meeting up to questions.

Q.                What opportunities were there to report back to other partner bodies

A.         We do attend other partners meetings and countrywide meetings of the authorities. They also issue a newsletter.

Q.        By looking at the data analysis, what was conclusion had been arrived about job opportunities?

A.         We are crating a coalition along the M11 corridor to help create jobs. We have the best performance in Essex in training, but have more people claiming job seekers allowance. A lot of what we do is to ask questions which was what the M11 corridor group was doing.

Q.        How do you  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

(Deputy Chief Executive) to consider the attached report.

The committee received a report requesting that they review where the Value for Money and Equality and Diversity issues were to be carried out. At present they are considered by the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Panel and members were ask to consider if they should go into the Overview and Scrutiny Committee work programme.

On consideration the Committee resolved that these topics should remain where they are, in the Finance and Performance Management Standing Panel.

            RESOLVED:

That the Value for Money and Equality and Diversity issues are kept within the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Standing Panel work programme.

To receive a progress report on the Debt Management Review undertaken last year and reported initially to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting in November 2009.

Chris Overend, the Policy and Research Officer introduced a report setting out progress on the recommendations agreed by the Committee in November 2009 consequent upon the findings of the debt management review sub group. At the same time the LSP were also looking at the effects of the ‘Credit Crunch’. This report set out the various details of any progress to date identified by the two reviews.

Councillor Jon Whitehouse said it was helpful for this to comeback to the Committee and to look at things in context.

Councillor Mrs Whitehouse spoke about Essex Savers of which she was a member. The Council had given no support to them; the LSP had given some help, but she was disappointed at so little practical help had been given.

Councillor Whitbread had taken aboard the comments and said that the Council had to be careful on how they allocated money.

Councillor Angold-Stephens asked why the outreach facilities at Limes Farm had not been mentioned. In response he was advised that the report in front of Members dealt specifically with the recommendations arising out of the two original reviews referred to and that the Limes Farm facilities would be dealt with in a separate report.

Councillor Breare-Hall asked if the banks and building societies were approached only once when asking about repossession cases. He was told that officers had only made one approach and did not get any response. Councillor Breare-Hall then requested that the banks/building societies are chased up.

            RESOLVED:

(1)               That the progress on the implementation of actions agreed following the review of Debt Management  Advice Provision and the LSP review on the ‘Credit Crunch’ be noted; and

(2)               That it be noted that a report was to be submitted to the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Panel on the take up of benefits in our district.

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

The Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Standing Panel introduced the review on the recent elections held in May 2010. This election consisted of a Parliamentary Constituency election together with 19 District ward elections.

It was noted that there were advantages of holding combined elections such as shared costs. However, it also created some difficulties such as the timetables were different, with different deadlines applying for nominations for local elections and parliamentary elections.

It was also noted that:

• there were no problems with the polling stations used;
• the total number of Parliamentary postal votes issued was 7,125, with approximately 85% being returned (26 being received after polling day);
• a dedicated policing team were in place on election day, with regular visits to all Polling Stations;
• there were no instances requiring an immediate Police presence;
• Epping Forest District Council had a successful liaison with Brentwood Borough Council and Harlow District Council as parts of their constituency were in our area;
• the count was carried out successfully, with the Parliamentary count being carried out on the night of Polling day and the District election count taking place on the next day;
• the Election agents were generally satisfied with the arrangements, though they would have liked each constituency candidate to be invited to the platform for the declaration of the Parliamentary result.

            RESOLVED:

            That the Committee noted the review of the elections held on 6 May 2010.

Recommendation:

That the Member Role Accountability Statement be referred to the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel for their consideration.

Following a request from the Epping Forest Member’s Remuneration Panel 5^th Annual Report 2008/09 and 2009/10, and Council on 20 April 2010, that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be asked to refer the Member Role Accountability Statements, which have been revised to reflect the changing role of members, to the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Panel with a view to recommendations being made for their adoption after consultation with the Remuneration Panel and the Standards Committee.

A request had been received from the Epping Forest Member’s Remuneration Panel and Council on 20 April 2010, that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be asked to refer the Member Role Accountability Statements to the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Standing Panel.

            RESOLVED:

That the Member Role Accountability Statement be referred to the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel for their consideration.

(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.

(a)        Work Programme

Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Noted that item 3, the provision of Youth Services within the District, be referred to the new Task and Finish Panel on the provision of Children Services in the District.

Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel

Noted that:

• item 2, Planning/Landowner roles, be deferred until the September 2010 meeting; and
• item 3, E-petitions was also to be held back.

(b)       Reserve Programme

There were no items to add to the reserve programme.

Recommendation:

That Councillor Jill Sutcliffe be appointed to the membership of the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny and Standing Panel.

At the last meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee there was one vacancy left to fill in the Finance and Performance Management Standing Panel. This was allocated to the Liberal Democrats Group. They have now nominated Councillor Sutcliffe and this Committee is asked to confirm that nomination.

The Committee agreed that Councillor Jill Sutcliffe be appointed a member of the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Standing Panel.

            RESOLVED:

That Councillor Jill Sutcliffe be appointed as a member of the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Standing Panel.

(Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Panel) to consider the attached report.

The Director of Environment and Street Scene, John Gilbert, introduced the report from the Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Panel on the CCTV Service Delivery Plan. This plan was considered and agreed by the Standing Panel in February this year. It pulled together within the Safer Communities Unit, most of the Council’s CCTV resources with the exception of that operated in the Civic Offices, which would be managed by the Corporate Support Services directorate.

There were both positive and negative aspects to the use of CCTV as in the use for crime reduction and concerns about excessive use and effects on civil liberties. This plan and its associated Code of Practice were intended to enable the Council to achieve a sensible balance between the two.

The plan looks to the next three years operationally and five years financially, with the operation stage being in two distinct phases:

1)                  Reviewing and consolidating existing CCTV systems; and

2)                  Developing and integrating systems to ensure compatibility, quality imaging and reviewing technologies.

The associated Code of Practice deals with the way data produced by the Council’s system, is handled, including:

a)                  How requests to view data is dealt with;

b)                  Individual subject access requests;

c)                  Disclosure of CCTV evidence;

d)                  The protections, storage and cataloguing of data; and

e)                  The evaluation, monitoring and audit of the systems.

Councillor Angold-Stephens said that there was some CCTV on private property – did the council have any on private property and do we pay for this. Mr Gilbert said that he suspected that the council did not have any, but if we did it would have some sort of agreement associated with it.

Councillor Bassett commented that some Town and Parishes have their own CCTV systems, would we start pulling these under our umbrella. Mr Gilbert said that officers would be happy to advise Town or Parish Councils, it would be sensible for all public owned CCTV to comply with the same standards.

Councillor Jon Whitehouse looking at the location of the CCTV cameras wondered what assessments were done to position the cameras. Mr Gilbert said they were placed near criminal activity or where the local population had concerns. There are strict criteria as to where CCTV cameras were put.

            RESOLVED:

(1)               That the CCTV Delivery Plan and Code of Practice be noted along with the following key actions:

                                                               i.      The resource implications;

                                                             ii.      The bringing together the management and maintenance  of all CCTV under the remit of the Safer Communities Unit; and

(2)               That the CCTV Delivery Plan is recommend to the Cabinet accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION:

To consider any items to be raised by the Chairman at the Cabinet meeting on 19 July 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 19 July 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.