Agenda and minutes

(Head of Research and Democratic Services)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

No substitute Members were reported.

(Head of Research and Democratic Services). 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.

No declarations of interest were made pursuant to the Council Code of Member Conduct.

Attached.

Noted.

Recommendation:

To receive a presentation from Inspector Glenn Mayes of Essex Police and Ms Jane Brooker - Wood of the Eastern Warden Resource Centre on the Neighbourhood Warden initiative.

(Joint Chief Executive Community/Head of Environmental Services). Members will recall that the Panel has previously considered the implications of the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act 2005 and the linked issue of Fixed Penalty Notices. This discussion has particularly focused on whether a Neighbourhood Warden Service should be implemented in the District and the measures they may carry out.

As requested at the last meeting on 13 April 2006, Glenn Mayes of Essex Police has been invited to this meeting to discuss Police experience with Neighbourhood Wardens, the scheme generally and any views that they may have on the Council employing wardens. His presentation will also report on the issue of Fixed Penalty Notices, the work of Community Police Support Offices and whether they could be used to issue notices and how such arrangements might work.

To report a further perspective, Ms Jane Brooker – Wood will be in attendance to advise on the views of the Eastern Warden Resource Centre. She will report examples of schemes elsewhere specifically in Essex, successes and failures, lessons learnt and some suggestions regarding schemes which may be visited to speak to elected Members and Officers, the Wardens themselves and local residents.

This session is designed to provide an insight into the issues and an opportunity to ask questions.

To support the above, attached is a report and scrutiny request form submitted by Councillor Mrs J Whitehouse. Also enclosed is background information on the Neighbourhood Warden Scheme. This information was circulated with the April 2006 agenda however has been reproduced for the benefit of those Members who are new to this Panel.

A copy of the related consultation document for the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act 2005 which was considered by the Panel in December of last year is available in the Members Room to place the review in context.

The Chairman welcomed Inspector Glenn Mayes the Project Manager for the Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) Programme at Essex Police and the Community Safety Accreditation scheme. She also welcomed Ms J Hill and Ms J Brooker – Wood of the Eastern Neighbourhood Resource Centre.

Noted background information produced by central government.

Councillor Mrs J H Whitehouse outlined the background and reason for her request aimed at achieving a cleaner and safer District possible through the use of wardens or other means if more appropriate. This related to the issue of whether Fixed Penalty Notices should be used by the Council to deal with such issues and if so whether Community Wardens or PCSOs should be used to issue them. Councillor Mrs Whitehouse also circulated a letter sent to her by a resident identifying issues for consideration and possible solutions.

Inspector Mayes reported the following points:

(a)                           the PCSO scheme was funded by the Home Office whereas the Neighbourhood Warden initiative was ODPM supported which complicated funding. In areas where a joint approach between the services had been pursued as in Colchester, Thurrock and Southend the schemes had worked well and could offer a complete service to enhance quality of life and community safety. A part time Parish/ Urban Ranger scheme operated in Braintree, however had suffered from a lack of joint working from the onset;

(b)                           wardens could be accredited under the Community Safety Accredited Scheme giving them police powers in addition to those in the Cleaner Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 and detailed in a pack circulated and available in the Members Room. Wardens with these powers would receive a badge and must be uniformed. There was no charge for the accreditation process however employees were screened and would not be credited if any issues were identified which could present issues in itself. The Chief Constable at Essex Police had accredited all PCSOs match funded by the Council giving them the available powers including enforcement of by laws etc save three which he listed.  The Head of Environmental Services clarified that accredited officers must be uniformed for enforcement action;

(c)                           police numbers had risen and further increases were planned;

(d)                           the measures available to wardens were aimed at protecting the environment – PCSOs focused on public order. Wardens could demand a name and address. Wardens did not have the ability to detain a suspect for 30 minutes which PSCOs could. It was doubtful whether they would want this provision as it might leave them vulnerable to assault;

(e)      Community Wardens were able to access police resources. The make up of the Essex Police PCSO establishment was 45/55% male female with 257 part time employees. There was no such thing as a  standard  ‘Fixed Penalty Notice’ as they were dealt with on a case by case basis;

The meeting consider the costs to the Council attached to employing Community Wardens and the cost of PSCOs. The meeting questioned whether the costs of employing wardens could be recovered by their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To consider the attached decision summaries for the meetings of the Joint Committee held on 26 April and 31 May 2006.

The Panel considered the summaries.

The Head of Environmental Services reported that central government had revised the rules governing bids for PFI in light of two major surveys. This was to open up the market place to smaller providers and asked that Local Authorities adopt a broader view on the collection process. The County had now to determine whether to pursue the PFI option. In relation to collection integration issues, steps continued with other collection Authorities in West Essex to facilitate the disposal process which all remained committed to. It was now unlikely now that one collection contractor would be pursued for West Essex given the diverse mix of issues and geographic size of the areas, however collections authorities  were  committed to ensuring that their aims and methods were approximately the same. The Panel noted the decision summaries.

To consider the information to follow.

The Head of Planning and Economic Development reported that due to other pressures on their time, officers had not been able to produce the information requested at the last meeting on cases submitted for change of use in rural areas neither had they been able to obtain the County study on the subject referred to at that meeting. A Member expressed concern over the slow progress being made with the review and stressed the need for a traffic count to inform the review.

(Chairman/Lead Officer) The Overview and Scrutiny Committee has agreed the Terms of Reference of this Panel and associated Work Programme. This is attached. The Panel are asked at each meeting to review both documents.

The OSC has asked the Panel to review policy on wheeled bins and the recycling of aluminium foil. A form on this is attached. The Panel now needs to consider how this is to be undertaken.

The Panel considered their work programme.

(a)        Item 2 (New Local Development Scheme)

The Council had received the Inspectors report. It was anticipated that the information would be finalised in advance of the Cabinet meeting in July 2006 and the Portfolio Holder would sign it off before then beating the 21June 2006 deadline. He suggested that further information on the process could be obtained from Ian White in Planning Services.

(b)       Item 4 (East of England Plan) Examination in Public Panels report

The Head of Planning and Economic Development reported that the Panel had reported on the examination last week. A full report on this would be submitted to Members for consideration and scrutiny involvement.

He reported that the Leader of the Council, Mrs D Collins and the Portfolio Holder for Economic Development gave a media briefing earlier in the day on the proposals. He circulated a copy of the media release produced by planning advising that the Panel had recommended that the house figures for the District be revised down from 18,600 to 6,500. It further indicated that the Stansted – M11 Growth corridor was no longer a named sub-region and that further growth in Harlow should focus on regeneration. The recommendations stated that the Panel had not endorsed North Weald as a suitable location for 6,000 new homes.

The report also indicated that Harlow would be expanded by the Green Belt review which could impact on the District. Furthermore infrastructure issues were still outstanding. It was cautioned that these were not final decisions thus they might be revised upwards at a later date.

Noted that the government was expected to publish its decisions in November 2006 following a further twelve week consultation period during which the Council were able to make a further response. It was emphasisedthat the Council should submit a response to these proposals before the Secretary of State formulated final decisions to maximise impact Recommended that a Member information session be held to consider the Council’s response.

Noted that a current position report would be made to the next Panel meeting in August 2006.

(c)               Review of Wheeled Bin Policy

Noted that in May 2006 the OSC added to the Panels work programme the task of reviewing the Council’s policy on the size of wheeled bins and the recycling of foil. This request was initially raised by Councillor Mrs Whitehouse and in a motion of Council in April 2006.The Head of Environmental Services reported the current criteria for issuing wheeled bins as detailed in this weeks Members Bulletin. The Portfolio Holder for Customer Services Media Communications and ICT, Councillor Metcalfe reported that this more relaxed approach was generating positive results and had relieved some of the pressures on the system. Agreed that the policy be reviewed in six months time. The Portfolio Holder requested information on the different streams available for recycling.

The Head of Environmental Services reported that officers had been asked to put together a user guide on the new collection service  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider which reports are ready to be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its next meeting.

No reports to be made.

The next meeting of the Panel will be held on 29 August 2006 at 7.30 pm in Committee Room 1 and then on 30 October, 19 December 2006, 26 February and 26 April 2007.

Noted that the next meeting of the Panel would be held on 29 August 2006 at 7.30 pm in Committee Room 1.