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 J Lea was substituting for Councillor M McEwen.

Decisions required:

To confirm the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 27 November 2012.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 27 November 2012 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.

There were no declarations of interest made pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct.

To receive a presentation from British Telecom informing us on the latest situation concerning Broadband connectivity for our district.

The Committee received a presentation from British Telecom on the latest situation on Broadband connectivity in our area. The speaker was Annette Thorpe, the Regional Partnership Director, East of England and accompanying her was David Leigh the BT Accounts Manager for EFDC. Their presentation is attached to these minutes.

Ms Thorpe started by saying that she was not a technical person and that she represented the BT Group.

The Committee noted that there was £2.5 billion to be invested up until 2014 on ‘Next Generation Access’. Part of this was in what was called Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC) service, delivering speeds up to 80Mbps downstream and 20Mbps upstream. It will reach two thirds of the UK by the end of spring 2014.  Their other project was ‘Fibre to Premises’ with speeds of 300Mbps downstream and 30Mbps upstream available on demand to anyone in an FTTC area this spring. They also deliver a service known as ‘Ethernet’ delivering speeds up to 10Gbps, this already runs to every business in every UK city.

Nine counties had run a procurement project to buy services and uplift rural broadband. In the east of the country Norfolk and Suffolk have contracted out, with Essex County Council going out to tender for their procurement activities in the not to distant future.

Twenty exchanges serve the EFDC area, with nine having superfast broadband speeds, some were in our area and some outside it geographically, although some would connect to bits of this district. Of the nine exchanges, eight deliver a service  called wholesale broadband connect, which offers up to 20mbps for multiple operators. Each of the exchanges has access to a basic 8Mbps. However, having said that, there were areas of slow speed across the district and they needed to be improved.

The Government has made available just over £500million for counties across the UK for them to come up with a local broadband plan citing how the general economic area would be improved by using this investment. As far as Essex was concerned, Essex County Council (ECC) has had £6.46 million pledged by government as long as they match fund this amount and went to tender within the next few months. This money will only be able to be used for areas where commercial operators were not going. Essex County Council would determine an ‘intervention area’ where this was likely. Ms Thorpe advised members to look on the ECC website where they have a detailed broadband plan. The District Council should have a representative on the steering group for that procurement.

In conclusion Ms Thorpe asked that members log on to the following website: www.essex.gov.uk/ruralbroadband where they could register their need for superfast broadband in rural areas.

The meeting was then opened out to questions from members.

Councillor Lion noted that the map shown by Annette Thorpe did not relate to areas within the Epping Forest District and was confusing. What sort of coverage do we have in our area? Ms Thorpe referred him to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

By leave of the Committee, agenda items 9, 10,11 and 12 were taken next.

(Chairman of the Panel – Councillor M Sartin) To consider the attached report.

The Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel, Councillor Sartin introduced their report on whether a Portfolio Holder Assistant could serve as one of the members on the Audit and Governance Committee (AGC).

The Council had adopted a recommendation whereby Portfolio Holder Assistants, provided they were not involved in any Portfolio dealing with the Council’s finances, could be eligible for appointment to the AGC. It was directed that this arrangement should be reviewed after one year.

The Panel had now reviewed the position as requested. They noted that one Portfolio Holder Assistant had served on the AGC until the last Annual Council meeting in 2012, but subsequently the Leader of the Council decided not to create such positions for the current financial year. The AGC members had been consulted and had stated that there had not been any difficulties and indeed the benefits of having a Portfolio Holder Assistant had been emphasised by showing the importance of its Councillor members having knowledge, expertise or interest in the Audit function.

RESOLVED:

(1)        That the results of the review after one year of arrangements under which Portfolio Holder Assistants may serve as members of the AGC be noted;

(2)        That no changes be made to Article 11 of the Constitution (Terms of Reference of the Audit and Governance Committee) at the present time;  and

(3)        That this issue be reviewed again as and when:

             (a)       Portfolio Holder Assistants are appointed once more; or

(b)       the Government decides to introduce Statutory Audit Committees; or

             (c)       the next review of Article 11 takes place.

Councillor Sartin reported on the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel’s review of the revised access to information rules.

On 10 September 2012, the Government brought into force new regulations concerning access to information/meetings for Local Authority Executives. The Panel reviewed the impact of these regulations on the Access to Information Rules in the Council’s Constitution.

They noted that the 2012 Regulations were a long and complex document which made changes to the access to information arrangements for local authority executives whilst consolidating existing provisions in other regulations made over the years.

Most of the provisions were already followed by this Council and noted that officers already had been briefed on the importance now attached to the 28 day period of notice in respect of decisions.

Councillor Angold-Stephens commented that a lot of the procedure rules referred to items a), b) or c) but without specifying which rule or paragraph it was referring to.  This was noted and would be clarified before it went on to the Council.

RESOLVED:

That a report be submitted to the Council recommending as follows:

(a)        that the revised Access to Information Rules be approved and published in the Constitution;  and

(b)        that the Assistant to the Chief Executive be appointed as Proper Officer in respect of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 in conjunction with his existing delegation in respect of the Access to Information Act 1985.

(Chairman of the Panel – Councillor M Sartin) To consider the attached report.

Councillor Sartin introduced the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel’s report on periods of notice for questions and related matters.

They had been asked by Management Board to review the deadlines for submission of questions by members of the public and Councillors at Council and Cabinet meetings. This was because there had been concern that it was becoming increasingly difficult to compile answers for Portfolio Holders at these meetings in the time between the meeting and the deadline for questions being submitted.

Their initial conclusion on the deadlines for questions was that there were inconsistencies which needed to be addressed.  For instance, questions by the public at Cabinet need not be received until 4.00pm on the day of the meeting.  In the case of Council meetings, questions under notice by Councillors must be received seven working days before the date of the meeting whilst public questions must be received by midday, seven working days before that meeting.

It had been suggested that submission of questions be brought forward to 14 days before the meeting in all cases. Although the Panel saw merit in this they thought that 14 days was too far ahead of the meeting date as councillors and members of the public would not be aware of the business of the meeting until after they had submitted their question. The Panel felt that for the Cabinet three working days before a meeting would be preferable as this was far enough ahead of the meeting to allow proper consultation and drafting of questions and allowed questions to be based on the actual agenda. Other meetings would be four working days.

Councillor Philip commented that the Panel had looked at a lot of different options and wanted to be consistent in their recommendations it was unfortunate the recommendations 1a, b and c all gave different wording. In order to be consistent he suggested that they should all say “at least four (three for the Cabinet meeting) working days before the meeting”. The Committee agreed this change.

Councillor Jacobs asked about public questions to the Cabinet and if questions about policy were to be answered on the day but not technical questions. Councillor Sartin said that they could go under the emergency questions section.

Councillor Smith wondered about councillors with prejudicial interests who had to leave the meeting. The Assistant to the Chief Executive said that a member with a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest  would not be at the meeting as they would have left. More problematic would be members with non-pecuniary interest if it did exclude them then they should not ask a question.

Councillor Wixley asked why a member of the public who had submitted a question but could not attend, use a substitute. He was told that they would not be able to ask a supplementary question as they would be unsure of their grounds. Councillor Jacobs asked if someone could come back with a written reply with a second question. He was told that they could.

RESOLVED:

(1)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

(Chairman of the Panel – Councillor M Sartin) To consider the attached report.

The Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel, Councillor Sartin introduced their report on their further review of the Appointments Panel process prior to Annual Council.  It had been requested that this system be reviewed after a year. This is the second such review.

They were of the view that the Panel had operated successfully for two years and should be permanently established and that a further annual review and treating the Panel as a temporary measure was no longer necessary.

RESOLVED:

(1)        That the continued successful operation of the Appointments Panel be noted;

(2)        That a report be made to Council recommending the following changes to the Constitution:

(i)         The revocation of the Protocol on the Allocation of Chairmanships and Vice Chairmanships and Outside Organisation Places in favour of measures (ii) and (iii) below;

(ii)        The formal inclusion of the Terms of Reference of the Appointments Panel in the ‘Responsibility for Functions’ Section of the Constitution and table of Responsibility for Council Functions Table be  included in Part 3 of the Constitution;

(iii)       Consequential amendments to be made to the Council Procedure Rules section 1 to reflect the Report of the Appointments Panel directly to the Annual Council meeting covering those matters set out in its Terms of Reference; and

(iv)       To authorise the Assistant to the Chief Executive to make the consequential amendments to the Council Constitution set out above; and

(3)        To recommend to Council that 9 and 14 May (reserve date) 2013 be approved as the date(s) for the Appointments Panel for 2013 and thereafter the dates be set as part of the annual calendar of meetings with the date of the Panel being set at least seven days prior the Annual Council meeting each year.

(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.

Overview and Scrutiny Committee

It was noted that the there was a log jam of presentations outstanding. At the November meeting this Committee had prioritised  the PCT and the Highways presentation, but a number of others were still due.

Officers had been informed that two other organisations would also like address the council and the best place would be at this Committee. Essex County Council would like to address members on ‘Corporate Parenting’  and the Essex Probation Services also expressed a desire to address members. The Committee agreed that these should be added to their work programme

Item 6 - It was noted that Epping Forest College was in a transition period as they are appointing a new principal and this review should be postponed to the new municipal year to allow the new principal to settle down. This was agreed.

Item 17 - The Committee decided that they would like to keep the review of Highways as a high priority and have it either in March or April.

Standing Panels

Housing Standing Panel

Noted that the Panel was on target to meet all its scheduled items on its work programme.

Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel

Noted that they were up to date and that a number of their reports were at this meeting.

Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Panel

The Chairman of the Panel, Councillor Lea appraised the Committee of their latest business. She informed that that they had received a presentation at their last meeting from officers of Thames Water who set out how they delivered services to our district following the transfer of the Council’s private sewerage responsibilities. They had also considered a government consultation on the proposed alcohol strategy. The Panel thought that the proposals were poorly thought out and disjointed. They also reviewed the five year CCTV plan and their terms of reference and work plan.

Finally Councillor Lea reminded the Committee that the newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner, Mr Nick Alston, would be attending their next Panel meeting to give a short presentation and answer questions from all present.

Planning Services Standing Panel

The Committee noted that they were up to date with their work  programme  and that their next scheduled meeting was to be on 16 April 2013.

Finance and Performance Management Standing Panel

The Chairman of the Panel, Councillor Lion noted that they had a joint meeting with the Finance Cabinet Committee in January on the Budget. He noted that members felt that the report on risk analysis needed simplification and that the Business Plan templates needed to be reviewed. At the behest of the Finance Portfolio Holder the Panel would also be looking at recharging at a future meeting.

Task and Finish Panels

Overview and Scrutiny Review Task and Finish Panel

The Panel has now met and their Terms of Reference was on tonight’s agenda for agreement by the Committee.

Review of Chief executive Appointments Panel Task and Finish Panel

A report has now been received and a meeting will  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Agenda Item 7 - Work Programme Monitoring

(b)              Reserve Programme

Please find attached a request from Councillor D Stallan for a Task and Finish Panel to be set up to review the protocol for (planning) site visits.

Also attached, for background information, is the current rules under the planning protocol as set out in our constitution.

Members are asked to consider the request and either:

(a)               Set up a Task and Finish Panel, by appointing a chairman and members to fully consider the request and report back to this Committee;

(b)              Ask an existing Standing Panel to consider this request; or

(c)               Decide not to support the request.

The Committee considered a request by Councillor Stallan for a Task and Finish Panel to be set up to agree a protocol for Planning site visits. He wanted a review of how site visits were managed by both members and officers. He wondered if other members were aware that there was already a protocol in place. He envisaged that a short serries of two or three meetings should be enough to complete the review and urged members to support his proposal.

Councillor Smith speaking as the Chairman of Area Plans West said that her own experience of site meetings were not problematic but if there was a problem then it would be common to all of the planning areas. She noted that the District Development Control Committee (DDCC) had occasional meetings of all the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of the Planning Sub-committees and they could review the existing protocol. This had come from the Standards Committee in 2005 and had not been reviewed since. She proposed that the Committee formally pass this request on to the DDCC for their consideration.

The Committee considered if it should be sent to the Planning Scrutiny Standing Panel but noted that it had a heavy workload which may delay them looking at it. This should be considered as quickly as possible as it may have an impact on member training at the start of the year.

RESOLVED:

That the District Development Control Committee be convened to look at this request to review the site visit protocol and make any relevant recommendations they consider necessary.

Report attached.

The Committee considered the Terms of Reference of the Overview and Scrutiny Review Task and Finish Panel. They noted that because of the scope of the review the Panel may not finish by the end of the year. If that was to be the case they would produce an interim report to keep this Committee and Council updated.

RESOLVED:

That the revised Terms of Reference and work programme for the Overview and Scrutiny Review Task and Finish Panel be agreed.

(Director of Planning & Economic Development) To consider the attached report.

The Assistant Director Development Control, Nigel Richardson, introduced the planning report on extending the range of pre-planning application charging. The report recommended that further charges be introduced by the Council to cover the costs of providing advice to many informal requests for planning advice received each week. Giving this advice draws significantly on officer’s time and although a statutory duty is often seen as an integral part of the planning process.

The proposed charging levels follows recommendations made by the Planning Services Scrutiny Standing Panel.

It was difficult to predict what such charges were likely to bring in a full year, but a modest income of about £40,000 was expected.

Councillor Philip supported the new charges and asked if charges could be levied for householders that put in retrospective applications. Mr Richardson said they could do so although he was not sure if anyone would come and discuss their application if they had already built it. If members were minded to add this recommendation then it should not only apply to Householders but also to major and minor developments.

It was noted that:

• the money would not be shared with other departments, such as advice about drainage from environmental officers;
• the proposed charges did not cover Planning’s expenses;
• the charges listed were considered proportionate and reasonable; and
• that telephone consultations were free of charge.

RESOLVED:

(1) That the current pre-application charging be expand to include advice on Minor type and Retrospective applications.

(2) That the approach and fees taken by other Authorities as set out in Appendix 1 and agree the fees as follows be noted:

(i)         Major* Developments (creation of 100 and over new residential units, creation of commercial development or changes of use of 10,000 square metres and over) = £3000.00 plus VAT

(ii)        Major* Developments (creation of 10 – 99 new residential units, creation of commercial development or changes of use between 1000-9,999 square metres) = £1500.00 plus VAT 

(iii)       Minor* Developments (creation of 2-9 new residential units, creation of commercial development or changes of use between 100-999 square metres) = £700.00 plus VAT

(iv)       Minor* Developments (creation of 1 new or replacement residential unit, creation of commercial development or changes of use up to 100 square metres) = £250.00 plus VAT

(v)        Retrospective Other* Developments (Householder developments, advertisements, changes of use, listed building consents to alter/extend or to demolish and conservation area consents) = Double the respective planning application fee plus VAT.

(Returning Officer) To consider the attached report.

The Returning Officer, Ian Willett, introduced the report on the recent Police and Crime Commissioner Elections, held in November 2012. The regulations for this election provided for the appointment of a Police Area Returning Officer (PARO) for each police area, to ensure that the election was administered to a consistent standard across the police areas. This would include the issuing of poll cards and postal votes, the staffing of polling stations and the verification and counting of votes. The PARO was given the power to give directions to Local Returning Officers (LROs) during the election period.

The committee noted that in our District:

• A severe weather mitigation plan was prepared;
• Mock counts involving senior staff were held to draw attention to potential adverse issues that may arise.

The legislation required that with three or more candidates a supplementary vote system would apply. This required two columns on the ballot paper one for first choice and one for second choice. At the conclusion of the count of first preferences across Essex no candidate had achieved 50%+ of the votes cast and it was necessary to undertake the second stage of the count.

The turnout was disappointing. For the whole of Essex it was 13.06%; in Epping Forest District it was a 10.34% turnout. This represented the third lowest turnout of the 14 district/boroughs in the County.

There had been some adverse publicity in the local press regarding some poll cards for a block of flats that were left on a window sill in the lobby rather than being put through individual letter boxes. Having assured the Electoral Commission that this was a one-off incident and that  processes were in place to ensure correct delivery of poll cards the Commission did not pursue the matter.

The total number of postal vote packets issued was 8,331. Only three packs failed to reach the electors in the post and had to be re-issued. 4,245 (50.95%) were returned.

It was required that arrangements were made for a final sweep of Royal Mail Sorting Offices on polling day at a cost to the District of £718 (inc VAT) in order to locate and obtain postal votes that were still in the postal system.  This resulted in two postal votes being received. In order for the sweep to be undertaken and in addition to the cost of the sweep itself, it was also necessary to obtain a postal vote licence from Royal Mail which amounted to £500. The cost of retrieving the two votes was therefore over £600 per vote.

All of the Ballot papers were printed by the Council’s Reprographics Section and as with previous elections they provided an excellent service bearing in mind the tight timescale for printing. Anecdotally, use of an in house print unit may have offered some cost advantages in comparison with councils using external printers.

There were 219 rejected ballot papers at stage 1 of the count and 702 at the second stage. This was higher than normal but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

RECOMMENDATION:

To consider any items to be raised by the Chairman at the Cabinet meeting on 4^th February 2013.

(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 4 February 2013 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 4^th February meeting but there were no specific items that the Committee wanted to be brought to their attention.