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 G Shiell had substituted for Councillor J Philip and that Councillor T Cochrane had substituted for Councillor Angold-Stephens.

(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.

The Acting Chief Executive declared a personal interest in agenda item 7 ‘Review of Chief Executive appointment process’ and indicated that he would stay for the hearing of the item.

Decisions required:

To confirm the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 7 June 2012.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 7 June 2012 be agreed.

To consider a call-in of the Portfolio Holder’s Decision on ‘Pyrles Lane Nursery, Pyrles lane, Loughton’ (AMED-002-2012/13). Call-in papers and report are attached.

The Committee considered the call-in of Portfolio Holders decision AMED-002-2012/13 regarding the outline planning application for the redevelopment of Pyrles Lane Nursery for residential use. The call-in was concerned about the apparent lack of consultation with ward members; they also had concerns about road safety issues for both vehicles and pedestrians going to and from the site; they noted that approximately two thirds of the site was designated as urban open space on the current Local Plan so the proposal would pre-empt consultation on the new Local Plan; and they wanted to know if there had been a cost benefit analysis done on the future of the nursery.

The lead member of the call-in Councillor David Wixley was asked to open the discussion. He said that he would talk to the first three points. He was the local ward councillor for this proposed project. This was a big issue for local residents as a lot of their properties backed on to this site. In 2011 a petition was submitted, it had been signed by the residents of the 31 households to be affected; nothing happened until September 2011 when an item appeared on a Cabinet agenda. He then asked for a site visit but this did not happen. He did however, get some feedback from the Portfolio Holder at the time and he again asked for a site visit. Come the change of cabinet members in May 2012 he felt that he had been excluded, although since then he had discussed this with the new Portfolio Holder, but she had nothing further to report.

He made a plea that if a similar situation arose in the future the ward members should be consulted, and again he made a plea for a site visit to be arranged for this application.

He went on to address the road safety aspects of the call-in. This site had a concealed entrance situated on a bend in the road, which was covered in vegetation with a couple of busy road junctions nearly opposite. This gave major concerns for road safety and for the safety of pedestrians. One of the major problems on this was the sight lines and this should be given serious consideration as a safety issue.

He then addressed the third point and noted that two thirds of the site was adjacent to Hilly Fields which was designated as an urban open space and the proposed site was an extension of this space. It was inappropriate for EFDC to develop here.

Another signatory of the call-in, Councillor Jennie Hart took up the point of the lack of a cost benefit analysis. She indicated that it was difficult for members to know if this was done. She had a copy of a report issued in June 2011 for a Cabinet meeting – but this was withdrawn at the last minute. This should be reissued again for any new members who had not seen it.  Has the economic side been considered, we can see what  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

To consider a call-in of the Local Plan Cabinet Committee’s Decision on the Statement of Community Involvement. Call-in papers and report are attached.

The Committee considered the call-in of a decision of the Local Plan Cabinet Committee regarding the Statement on Community Involvement. This related to the Committee’s decision that the Statement of Community Involvement be consulted on for a period of 8 weeks from 30 July to 21 September 2012. The call-in was concerned that a significant part of the consultation was during August when most residents were away; that this was only two weeks extra to the statutory minimum for this consultation; that the timescale for road-shows did not permit sufficient time for informed responses from the residents; and lastly that changes of the committee’s Terms of Reference meant that councillors would not be aware that the committee had decision making powers.

The lead member of the call-in, Councillor Wagland was asked to open the discussion. She started by saying the Local Plan would be the most important document to be produced by the council for the next two decades. Once something has been put into the plan it would be an uphill struggle to roll it back.

The issues and options stage was an important one and the question was how long we should give residents to read and digest the information and to respond.  The Portfolio Holder had acknowledged that the statutory six weeks was not good enough and had proposed eight weeks. We could ask what a reasonable person would think of this and she had talked to residents who said that we were not serious knowing how important this was to them. The consultation on both the Gypsy and Travellers’ directive sites and the St John’s site got thousands of responses and eight weeks in her view was not enough time to consult. This should ideally last for 12 weeks, but up to the October half term break, the 13^th October would be acceptable.

She realised we need to do the Local Plan as soon as possible but it must be sound; the evidence base of the resident’s response must provide this base, we need their input.

The Council did not like the original draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as government advice on planning policy which it would have to use without a Local Plan. Thanks to officers and the past Portfolio Holder, the government appears to have listened and the final NPPF is a much better document.

Much of the Council’s own plan would hold good if we did not meet the government deadline to adopt the Local Plan and we would have to go for a default option.  So what harm would 12 weeks do? However, if you do not want to extend to 12 weeks we are willing to go for a 13 October deadline.

Councillor McEwen, a signatory of the call-in thanked the officers for all their work. She accepted that two weeks extra was given but that did not cover lost time in August. Parish/Town Councils would not have the time to consider this as they do not meet in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

(Chairman, Finance and Performance Management Standing Panel) - To consider the attached report.

The Committee received a report from the Finance and Performance Management Standing Scrutiny Panel summarising the items considered at their last meeting , but specifically asking for agreement to changes to their terms of reference.

The Committee noted that:

• They had suggested the removal of reference to ‘statutory’ performance indicators as all nationally applied indicators ceased in 31 March 2011;
• They had proposed the deletion of the requirement to develop proposals for an annual community conference;
• They had suggested the removal of the specific references to the Council’s web-casting system from its ICT related terms of reference as it had responsibility for monitoring and reviewing progress on all ICT systems;
• That they did not consider it necessary to retain reference to Task and Finish Panels within their value for money terms of reference, and instead proposed recommending as necessary to the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee where detailed value for money work may be required;
• They further suggested the removal of reference to Local Area Agreements from their terms of reference as these formal joint working arrangements were abolished during 2010/11; and
• They proposed updating  the Panel’s equality related terms of reference to reflect the recent adoption of the Council’s equality objectives for 2012/13 to 2015/16 and the cessation of requirements for the production of Race, Gender and Disability Equality Schemes.

            RESOLVED:

That the amendments to the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Standing Panel’s Terms of Reference be agreed.

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

The Committee noted that the Council had requested that Overview and Scrutiny conduct a review on the processes adopted in respect of the recruitment of a new Chief Executive. It was emphasised that they were not seeking a review of the outcome of the recruitment exercise but the processes adopted to achieve an appointment.

This came from a review report submitted to the Council on 14 February 2012 by Overview and Scrutiny on senior level appointments within the Council. One of the recommendations of that review was that there should, after every such recruitment exercise, be an opportunity for Overview and Scrutiny to examine how the process was conducted and whether there were any learning points for the future. They should consider the recruitment pack, the recruitment advertisement, detail of the recruitment centre, the decision making process and the provision of external legal and external/internal HR Advice. Also to be considered would be feedback from  members of the original Panel, applicants, the Council’s recruitment consultant and any officers involved in supporting the process.  They may also wish to consult all Members of the Council as the appointment of a Chief Executive was a matter reserved to the Council itself.

The Committee thought that it would be appropriate that the original panel on the senior management appointments panel be asked to carry out this review. The original members were Councillors K Angold-Stephens (Chairman), R Bassett, Mrs A Grigg, D Stallan and J M Whitehouse. It was requested that these members be  approached to ask if they were willing to sit on this Panel.

The Committee requested that the Panel report back no later than mid October.

            RESOLVED:

(1)               That a Task and Finish Panel be established to carry out review of the process adopted for the Chief Executive appointment, as requested by the Council;

(2)               That the Terms of Reference should include the matters listed above;

(3)               That the Panel should consist of Councillors K Angold-Stephens (Chairman), R Bassett, Mrs A Grigg, D Stallan and J M Whitehouse; and

(4)               That the Panel should report back by mid October 2012.

Recommendation:

To amend a member of the Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Scrutiny Panel, from Councillor P Keska to Councillor H Brady.

The Conservative Group would like to amend a nomination to the Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Scrutiny Panel. They would like to replace Councillor P Keska with Councillor H Brady.

The Committee noted and agreed the amendment to the composition of the Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Scrutiny Panel.

            RESOLVED:

That the membership of the Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Scrutiny Panel be amended from Councillor P Keska to Councillor H Brady.

(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.

O&S Work Programme

Item 10 – the Committee noted that the Corporation of London had been lined up to attend the September meeting and were asked to clarify what they wanted covered by Mr Thompson in his presentation. The Committee asked that the following be covered:

• The new visitors centre;
• The downgrading of High Beech; and
• The Forest Festival used to be in September and had recently been cancelled – would it be resurrected.

Also to be invited would be a representative from Friends of Epping Forest.

The Committee also thought they would like to have a special meeting at 7pm, before the start of the scheduled Committee meeting, to agree on their questions to be asked and the tack they would like to take as a Committee.

Housing Standing Panel

The Committee noted that they had a full work programme for the year and that an extra meeting had been scheduled for 7 August 2012.

Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel

The Committee noted that the item on employment procedure rules would be going to their September meeting. They had already covered the review on substitution rules at their first meeting.

An extra meeting had been scheduled for 7 January 2013.

Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Scrutiny Panel

It was noted that the Nottingham Declaration had a change of name and emphasis and this would affect their Terms of Reference. A report would be coming to the next O&S meeting asking for this change to be agreed.

Planning Services Standing Scrutiny Panel

The Committee noted their programme of work for the year.

Finance and Performance Management Standing Scrutiny Panel

This had been reported on earlier in a written report.

Overview and Scrutiny Review Task and Finish Panel

Research was being undertaken by Connor Lattimer and a report was being written. A meeting was to be arranged in the near future.

Recommendation:

To consider any items to be raised by the Chairman at the Cabinet meeting on 23 July 2012.

(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 23 July 2012 Cabinet agenda (previously circulated) to see whether there are any items that they wished to be raised at the Cabinet meeting.

The Committee reviewed the Cabinet’s agenda for their 23 July meeting but there were no specific items that the Committee wanted to be brought to their attention.