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 24 January 2011.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 24 January 2011 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 W Breare-Hall declared a personal interest in agenda item 8 as he was the Deputy Housing Portfolio Holder.

(ii)        Councillors Mrs R Gadsby, R Bassett, Mrs P Smith, Mrs M Sartin and Ms S Stavrou declared personal interests in agenda item 8 as they were members of the Area Planning Sub-Committee that decided on the original planning application for 35 Denny Avenue.

To receive a presentation from a David Vernazza, the officer charged with organising the Census for our region, on the background, aims and objectives of the upcoming national census.

The Committee welcomed David Vernazza, the officer charged with organising the census for our region, who was there to speak about the background, aims and objectives of the upcoming national census.

The Committee noted that the census had been going since 1801 and was of historical value as an indicator of the past and where we were moving on to as a society. Central Government raises about £100 billion in taxes and the information gathered by the census was used for redistributing funds to local communities. The Committee noted that there was a need to understand how society was changing, and what the trends in aging were.

The Committee noted that:

• The Gypsy and Traveller population had never been counted before, this time they would be;
• It was estimated that each form filled in would generate about £500 a year in funding for the district;
• Completion of the forms also underpins policy making and forward planning and helps target expenditure;
• There would be no questions on sexual identity or income;
• Historically, the over eighties have experienced difficulty in filling in the forms and at the other end younger people thought that their time was too valuable to fill them in;
• Typically, children under school age are not put on the form and this would affect educational numbers and school places in future years; and
• It would take a hundred years for the stored information to be attributed to individuals.

The forms will be posted from the start of the second week of March and they could be filled out online or manually. Census day will be 27 March 2011 and a series of adverts and corresponding publicity will lead up to this day.

The meeting was then opened for questions from members.

Councillor Breare-Hall noted that the population was changing rapidly, for how long were the results reliable after being gathered? Mr Vernazza said that the trends from the last 2001 census until today were always changing. A census carried out more frequently would give a more accurate picture. At the ten year limit, results were diluted.

Councillor Mrs Sartin asked if this would be the last ever census and if so how could this information be gathered in the future. She was told that there was a strong feeling that no other method could provide as much information, as accurately. There was no clear ‘other way’.

Councillor Mrs Smith asked what the penalty was for not returning the form. Mr Vernazza said that maximum fine was £1,000; the timescale depended on the law courts. The compliance teams will start work in June; starting by sending out warnings. They would not go to court until the end of the year. Last time there was only about one hundred prosecutions.

Councillor Jennie Hart queried if they would stress in their publicity not to leave out young children. She was told that they would focus on them this time.

Councillor Mrs Wagland asked if the figures for the costs were accurate and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

To consider a call-in of the Cabinet’s Decision on ‘Town Centres Officers and the Future Management of Town centres’ (C-053-2010/11). Call-in papers and report are attached.

The Committee considered the call-in of a decision by the Cabinet of a Finance and Economic Development Portfolio Holder report (C-053-2010/11) regarding the discontinuance of the Town Centre Officer post. The call-in was concerned  that this decision was contrary to the Council’s stated intention to support local businesses, the regeneration of our high streets and that there was no indication of who was going to carry out an investigation into Town Centre management.

The lead member of the call-in, Councillor Jeannie Hart was asked to open the discussion. She started by saying that the Town Centre Officer (TCO) post should be retained and that this was contrary to  the Council’s stated intention. The post was due to finish in July when the current funding ran out and officers had recommended that the post continue to be funded until April 2012. She was aware how difficult it was to fund the post but felt a co-ordinator would be necessary in this role. Good Town Centre Management was vital for a Town Centre economy; visits to Town Centres have declined by 20%, and high street shops were empty, so it was important to have a manager. The Government’s Big Society demanded co-ordinated action at the local level.

The Council currently have a well qualified Town Centre Manager, who was a very approachable person and who had launched a number of projects. This was the only link between the business rate payers and the Council. Keeping this post was affordable.

Councillor Rose Brookes added that there were lots of empty properties in Ongar and Waltham Abbey. Although the Council had frozen car parking charges to help our traders, we needed an officer to keep driving things like this forward.

The responsible Portfolio Holder, Councillor Whitbread was then asked to make his opening statement. He said that much had been done by this administration such as freezing car parking charges and shortening the turn around time for invoices. This call-in was disappointing but understandable as we now have to make some difficult decisions. Government funding for this post had ran out last year.

We collect £31 million in business rates but only keep £5 million. We also have a recruitment freeze at present, when we examine each vacant post as they occur. A lot of other authorities do not have a Town Centre Manager post. We would need to look at other means of funding this post. I believe this was the right decision.

The Chairman next asked Dave Stannard, the Chairman of the Debden Town Centre Partnership to make his statement. He appreciated that cuts had to be made, but thought some cuts which could be avoided as they would have a long term effect on the Council. He asked for an extra year for this post.

Debden have a thriving Town Centre Partnership because of the current officer.  There needed to be an officer that the traders could talk to. The original funding for this post came from Sainsbury’s, why could we  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

To consider the attached report.

At its meeting on 15 April 2010, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered the call-in of a decision by the Housing Portfolio Holder approving a variation of the restrictive covenant placed on the sale of 35 Denny Avenue, Waltham Abbey in order to grant permission for either its current use or as privately rented shared accommodation, on condition ensuring that the occupiers of the accommodation do not cause any management problems, nuisance or anti-social behaviour.  The option of releasing the restrictive covenant was ruled out, as a variation would allow the Council to maintain control and deal with any issues that may arise.

Planning consent for the change of use had recently been refused and an enforcement notice had been served.  The varying of the restrictive covenant would only have been effective should planning consent be granted.  The Committee were advised that planning consent and varying the restrictive covenant were two separate matters and it was quite possible for two different Directorates to reach different conclusions.

The Committee agreed the following:

(i) That the decision be referred back to the Housing Portfolio Holder for further consideration and review once any Planning appeal had been determined by the Secretary of State; and

(ii) That the Housing Portfolio Holder would bring the issue back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee along with appropriate legal advice, prior to making the final decision.

Councillor Stallan, the Housing Portfolio Holder noted that the Planning Inspector had granted planning permission for the change of use for the property but had also set a number of conditions mainly relating to the provision of parking spaces. He also noted legal advice that cited cases whereby if the covenants were not released, the owners of the property could apply to the Upper Tribunal for the covenant to be released and then costs would become an issue.

One of the points raised last time was the potential problems to neighbours. To date there has not been any complaints made.

Part of the Planning Inspectors conditions was that a parking scheme be submitted by 17 April 2011. None has been received so far and Councillor Stallan said that he would not make a decision until this had been submitted. He would also delegate to the Director of Housing to agree future requests for changes of use under the restrictive covenant, provided the requirements set out were complied with.

The Committee noted that a variation to the covenant would enable the council to manage any problems as they arise.

Councillor Wagland advised that the covenant should be varied on the basis that the discharge would not adversely affect the persons entitled to the benefit of the covenant. This was agreed by Councillor Stallan and he agreed that a revised decision would be published in the Members Bulletin.

            RESOLVED:

(1)        That the decision to vary the restrictive Covenant at 35 Denny Avenue, Waltham Abbey be taken on the completion of the conditions as set by the Planning Inspector;

(2)        That the decision was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

(Councillor M McEwen – Chairman, Constitution and Members Services Scrutiny Panel) To consider the attached report.

The Committee received a report from the Constitution and Members Services Standing Committee on the processes of the annual council meeting and the procedure of making appointments. The Chairman of the Panel, Councillor McEwen introduced the report. The Panel firstly suggested changes to create an Appointments Panel, to meet on a pre arranged date between the elections and the Annual Council meeting, where it would receive the recommended appointments for the coming year, including those of the Leader, members of ordinary committees, Chairman and Vice-Chairman  of Council and those members that would sit on outside bodies. Any areas of real contention would be left to be decided by a vote at Council.

The Panel would be a recommending Panel and would not be subject to pro-rata, but membership would include representatives from all political groups and an open invitation to all un-affiliated members. Of course the Panel itself would need to be appropriately appointed depending on the results of the election.

They were also asked to look at improving the ceremonial aspect of the Annual Council. They thought it would help the smooth running of the meeting if a rehearsal was held during the afternoon. They further recommended that a ceremonial signing of declarations of acceptance of office be carried out in the well of the Chamber.

They also considered a review of the constitution of Political Groups. Subject to a legal view they recommended that each group formally reconstitutes itself with a notice asking to be treated as a group which is signed by two or more members of that group. Then other members could sign individual forms making it easier for all the signatures to be with the proper officer by the due date.

They were not recommending any changes to the appointment of the Vice-Chairman of the Council.

Councillor Grigg thought that this was an excellent idea although she had doubts about the declaration of acceptances of office. It would be sufficient for the Chairman to say that members had signed the declaration. Signing in the CEO’s office gave members the time to have a private discussion.  Mr Hill said that the Panel thought that there was a need to rebalance the meeting to a more ceremonial type of meeting. Members could still sign with the Chief Executive before the meeting, but also sign at the meeting and receive a certificate.

Councillor Philip added that the Panel was tasked with looking at the ceremonial aspects of the annual council meeting; they recognised the time burden but thought it was a price worth paying.

Councillor Smith agreed with Councillor Grigg, there could be a global declaration or a vow made, but she was not in favour of what was being suggested. It should be kept clear and succinct.

Councillor Rose Brookes appreciated a little ceremony, at her first annual council new members had their names called out and they went up and shook the Chairman’s hand, this was enough.

Councillor Stallan noted that the proposals were to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

(Councillor M McEwen – Chairman, Constitution and Members Services Scrutiny Panel) To consider the attached report.

The Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel, Councillor Mrs McEwen, introduced a report on the draft protocols for the three Statutory Officers and their relationship with the Council. The three statutory officer posts being the Head of Paid Services, the Monitoring Officer and the Chief Finance Officer.

The Panel considered how their functions were to be carried out in the event that any of the designated officers had a conflict of interest which would rule them out of involvement.

Councillor Wagland had some doubts about paragraph 3(b) of the report about conflict of interest and agreed to discuss this with the Monitoring Officer and alter if necessary before the report goes on to the next Council meeting.

            RESOLVED:

            That a report be submitted to the Council recommending:

(a)        that protocols for the three Statutory Officers and their relationship with the Council, as set out in Appendices 1-3 of the report, be adopted;

(b)               that these protocols be reviewed every two years in future; and

(c)               if necessary, paragraph 3(b) be altered by the Legal and Estates Portfolio Holder after holding discussions with the Monitoring Officer.

(Councillor M McEwen – Chairman, Constitution and Members Services Scrutiny Panel) To consider the attached report.

The Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel, Councillor Mrs McEwen, introduced a report on the Councillor Accountability Statements that were reviewed by her Panel. The Council had asked that Overview and Scrutiny look at the revised Member Accountability Statements with a view of recommending adoption after consultation with the Remuneration Panel and the Standards Committee as appropriate.

Draft statements were considered by the Panel and various changes were requested. It was noted that with the limited life of the current standards regime, the preparation of statements concerning the Standards Committee should be deferred.

            RESOLVED:

            That a report be submitted to the Council recommending:

(a)        approval of the Member Accountability Statements;

(b)        when adopted by the Council, the Accountability Statements be referred to the Remuneration Panel to assist them in advising the Council on Member Remuneration;

(c)        the deferral of work on Accountability Statements in respect of the Standards Committee; and

(d)        preparation of Accountability Statements for the Audit and Governance Committee for future discussion by that body.

(Report by David Newton) In response to a Members request, the District Council have carried out an investigation into the feasibility of assisting in the provision of wireless broadband connectivity to rural areas currently suffering from slow or no broadband access.

Following a meeting with a representative from the Federation of Small Business (FSB) an additional meeting was arranged with Essex County Council (ECC), who had previously funded a similar project. ECC provided a £10,000 loan to a Company (Buzcom), to supply coverage to the Maldon area. Unfortunately, ECC funding for future projects has been withdrawn.

The District Council have concerns around the selection process for potential suppliers and the risk of being associated with a business should it not perform well.  It is felt that this is a commercial issue and as such the market should determine whether it is viable to enhance broadband facilities within these areas.

The Assistant Director ICT, David Newton, informed the Committee that he had investigated the possibility of the Council assisting in the provision of wireless broadband in rural areas. He noted that Essex County Council had undertaken a similar exercise, where they supplied a loan of £10,000 to a company to supply coverage to the Maldon area. Unfortunately, ECC funding for future projects had been withdrawn.

It was difficult to see how the District Council could help as they could not provide a financial incentive or be associated with an existing (possibly failing) supplier. The market was aware of the issues and were making moves to address it. 

Councillor Wagland said that we needed to look at this in a broader way, it was about economic competitiveness and the problem was not just confined to rural areas. We need as a Council to find some way to work with this.

The Committee debated whether a Task and Finish Panel should be set up to look into this topic, but decided as it was already on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s Work Programme, it should remain there. They would still like a service provider to attend one of their meetings; however the Committee would need to sort out exactly what they wanted from this meeting, and to this end the Committee agreed that they should scope out their approach at their next meeting.

            RESOLVED:

(1)               That a service provider be invited to a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in the new Municipal year; and

(2)               That an item be added to the next agenda to enable the Committee to discuss their approach to the service provider.

(a)                           Updated Schedule

The Committee are asked to note the updated schedule.

(b)       Next Year’s Work Programme

The work programme for next year will be considered at the April meeting of this Committee. Members should start thinking of any work they would like the Committee to consider to go into next year’s Work Programme and bring it to the April Meeting. A request form is attached

(a)       Work Programme

(i)         Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Noted that were two presentations lined up for the April meeting, the Epping Forest College and the Community Magistrates.

(ii)        Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Panel

Comments of the progress made on item 5, the Nottingham Declaration, needed to be included on the work programme.

(b)       Next Year’s Work Programme

Noted that members who wished to add a topic to the work programme needed to fill out a request form s o that it could be considered at the April meeting.

RECOMMENDATION:

To consider any items to be raised by the Chairman at the Cabinet meeting on 7 March 2011.

(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 7 March 2011 Cabinet agenda (previously circulated) to see whether there are any items that they wished to be raised at the Cabinet meeting.

The Committee wanted to emphasise the importance of the Pest Control Contract, especially the provision of a ‘preferred contactor service’ to our residents.