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.

There were no substitute Members for the meeting.

Decisions required:

To confirm the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 12 July 2010.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 12 July 2010 be agreed subject to the alteration of ‘19 years’ to ‘35 years’ in minute item 18.

(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.

To receive a presentation from Ms St Aubin d’Ancey of ‘Connect Plus M25’. This organisation is responsible for the M25 works for the next thirty years.  They wish to engage the community and set up a dialogue with the District.

The Committee Chairman welcomed Tim Jones, the CEO of ‘Connect Plus’ the company that had the contract to maintain the M25 and had been appointed the preferred bidder to design, build, finance and operate the M25 project. He informed the Committee that the company had a thirty year contract with the Government via the Highways Agency and were spending the equivalent of a million pounds a day on remedial works and updating and enlarging some carriageways. They were at present refurbishing the Hatfield Tunnel. (A copy of his presentation slides are attached to these minutes)

The company worked closely with the Highways Agency and ‘Metronet’, with the Highways Agency also having a seat on their board. Their contract was due to end in September 2039.

The Committee noted that the government were considering turning the area around the Dartford Crossing into a managed motorway, putting in a free flowing tolling section for the crossing.

They were also particularly proud of their Health and Safety record, having had no reportable accidents in over 1.6 million hours worked. The vast majority of work was done at night so as not to disrupt traffic. They had main operations and maintenance depots at South Mimms and Dartford and have a smaller depot at Blunts Farm, Theydon Bois.

The company had to take a long term view (30 years) of the works they have to do and had developed a supply chain with an eye to achieving best value.

The Chairman then opened the meeting to questions from the Committee and other members.

Q.        What are the options to improve the flow through the Dartford Crossing?

A.         This had recently been made worse by the periodic closure of the Blackwall Tunnel. Also with the crossing it only needed one breakdown or fire and that would slow things down considerably. Free flow tolling would help considerably especially on the North to South crossing, but revenue collection would pose a challenge. It should also be noted that the crossing was not a Motorway, it’s classed as an ‘A’ road, and the occasional cyclist does tend to use it.  The ultimate solution would be a separate lower Thames crossing point.

Q.        Density of traffic means that certain parts of the motorway wears out quicker than other parts. Has this been taken into account?

A.         Yes it has. The M25 had been constructed to various standards over the different sections as they were being built. Various companies are looking at new ways to repave the surface for the future.

Q.        The toll charge has gone up from £1 to £1.50, is this adding to the congestion. Is this money used for renewal and maintenance and would having no charge improve the flow.

A.         Only 6,000 people and hour can go through the crossing anyway.  Officially it is a charge and not a toll, and the money goes to the exchequer. Also a lot of people do not wait for their change and just drive through.

Annually £70million  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

To consider a call-in of the Cabinet’s Decision on Sports and Leisure Management Contract Extension Negotiations (C-009-2009/10). Call-in papers and report attached.

The Committee considered the call-in of a decision by the Cabinet of a Leisure and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder report (C-009-2010/11) regarding the suspension of the new sports hall at Waltham Abbey swimming Pool and to reconsider it as part of the annual review of the Council’s capital programme. The call-in suggested that any net savings made should be re-invested in Waltham Abbey, a known area of deprivation.  The efficient time to do this was now while the Council was re-negotiating with SLM.

The lead member of the call-in, Councillor Mrs Pat Brooks was asked to open the discussion. She said that the Cabinet had taken no account of assurances given to residents.  It seems like Waltham Abbey resident’s wellbeing had been sacrificed. King Harold School now runs the sports centre successfully, but cannot handle the long term needs of casual users. In addition the sports centre has limitations particularly for those with disabilities. Waltham Abbey contains some of the most deprived areas in the district.  This new hall can be funded now by revenue savings from the closure of the sports centre. If not, she could see the decision being deferred indefinitely.

The responsible Portfolio Holder, Councillor B Rolfe, was then asked to make his opening statement. He said that Epping Forest has an established policy on using capital resources where there is a demonstrable revenue benefit. The sports centre does not meet this requirement as it would cost £50,000 extra per annum. There were no obvious financial benefits on taking this forward at this time, but it will be taken to the planning application stage.  The Council had good relations with SLM and could arrange terms later when needed. He acknowledged that Waltham Abbey has some deprived areas in the district but it did have other fitness facilities and a swimming pool. Although there was a loss of a specialist gym and a summer play scheme, the Council were also looking to put in an ‘astro’ turf all weather pitch in Waltham Abbey at a cost of £507,000 and we have also recently opened a refurbished Ninefield Hall. There are also other deprived areas in the district such as Limes Farm and Debden.

This would be good if the scheme could proceed but the current financial position makes this impossible for now.

Councillor Jon Whitehouse asked what criteria was used for the yearly assessment of the Sports Hall and how many years could this go on for?  Councillor Rolfe replied that the criteria was only a financial one at present and the situation would have to be reviewed annually over the next two or three years. Councillor Whitehouse was glad to find out that the criterion was only a matter of finance. He thought there was a need to look at the leisure contract in the round and see if the savings made could pay for the new hall. There was a danger of postponing the decision and have the savings absorbed into the budget as a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Recommendation:

To note the response of the Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Panel to this consultation and to make any appropriate further recommendations.

This consultation had to be considered urgently by a special meeting of the Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Panel on 26 August 2010, as the Council’s response had to be back by 20 September. As this meeting had not occurred by the time of this agenda being published, the Standing Panel’s views and recommendation will be reported at the meeting.

Once the Overview and Scrutiny meeting has made it’s recommendation, these will then go on to the Cabinet Meeting to be held on 13 September 2010.

For information, the report and background papers that went to the Safer Cleaner Greener Panel are attached.

The Committee considered a Home Office consultation paper on ‘Policing in the 21^st Century – Reconnecting police and the people’. This had previously gone to the Safer Cleaner Greener Scrutiny Standing Panel on 26 August 2010 and the draft minutes from that meeting were tabled for the committee’s information.

Members noted that page 49 of the agenda contained a table of suggested consultation responses and the tabled minutes had the Safer Cleaner Greener Panel’s response to some of the responses.

On going through the responses, the Committee made the following comments:

• That any new panels that oversee the work of the police commissioner should have a direct relationship with the commissioner and be able to hold them to account.

• Question 1: The proposed Commissioner would not be working alone; they would have an office to do the admin work so there would be cost implications to this. It could cause some democratic difficulties with a candidate that could come from anywhere and the chance of getting a reasonable turnout at an election was remote, making the chances of getting a potentially unsuitable commissioner a risk.

• Question 18: This calls for senior police officers to take a more business-like approach, but is hampered by the quick turn-around in senior officers. It would call for forward planning and preserving a continuity of senior police officers.

• There was a need to continue collecting data so we could compare forces.

• It seems we have limited powers to scrutinise the commissioner and his office. 

• Overall this was a good concept;

• we want more front line policing; and

• would we get a better service or make more savings because of this; it was not clear and the Committee would like this clarified.

RESOLVED:

(1)   That the Home Office consultation paper on the future of policing be noted.

(2)   That the responses made by officers and the Safer Cleaner Greener Scrutiny Standing Panel be agreed with the additional comments made by this Committee and reported to the Cabinet.

Recommendation:

To note the response of the Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Panel to this consultation and to make any appropriate further recommendations.

This consultation had been considered by a special meeting of the Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Panel on 26 August 2010. As this meeting had not occurred by the time of this agenda being published, the Standing Panel’s views and recommendation will be reported at the meeting.

For information, the report and background papers that went to the Safer Cleaner Greener Panel are attached.

The Committee considered a consultation document on licensing entitled “Rebalancing the Licensing Act 2010”. The Assistant Director, Legal Services, Alison Mitchell introduced the consultation document. The document was looking to give local licensing authorities additional powers to regulate licensing in their area and to allow them to respond more effectively to local concerns. The closing date for this review was 8 September 2010.

Officers had suggested answers to the consultation questions taking into account issues that have been raised in the past and committee members were also provided with the response from the Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Panel that looked at this on 26 August 2010.

The Committee made the following comments on the question posed:

• Question 5: On issuing of boundary notices, the position should be reversed with the Council being allowed to advertise on their web site, without prejudice, as part of the consultation process and to enable the applicant to advertise elsewhere other than the local newspapers.

• Question 14: the officer’s suggested answer should be reworded to ‘we’ instead if ‘I’.

• Question 25: Could a question be included on how we could go about setting our own consultation fees so that we could get back some of the fee money collected.

• As a general comment the committee wanted to know how wide an area would be defined for any proposed widening of the consultation areas.

• It was important for Town or Parish Councils to be considered as interested parties.

            RESOLVED:

That the suggested replies to the questions raised in the Government’s consultation document ‘Rebalancing the Licensing Act 2010’ be endorsed subject to the Safer Cleaner Greener member’s comments as reported and the additional comments made by this meeting.

(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

Item 7: Epping Forest College - noted that the principal had been asked to attend the October meeting. Officers would like to know if there were any specific topics they would like covered. Members wanted to know:

• what their academic objectives were for the next few years;
• what their plans were for community engagement; and
• what plans they have for the use of their sports field.

(b)       Standing Panels

Planning Services Scrutiny Standing Panel

The Chairman of the Panel, Councillor J Philip gave a brief outline of the Panel’s work at their last meeting:

The Panel met on Thursday 2 September and discussed the following:

• New Improvement Plan for 2010/11
• Considered proposed re-structure of Countrycare, which involved the creation of an additional Countryside Assistant and the deletion of one Assistant Countryside Manager Post.
• The Panel will be looking at types of planning applications from the past few years regarding lessons that may be learnt about the planning process
• The Panel recommended that performance indicator targets LPI 45 Planning appeals and NI 157(b) Processing of Minor Applications be changed.
• The Panel will need to schedule an extra meeting in early October to discuss consultations on the Core Strategies for both Broxbourne Borough Council and East Herts District Council.

RECOMMENDATION:

To consider any items to be raised by the Chairman at the Cabinet meeting on 13 September 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 13 September 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.