Agenda and minutes

(Assistant to the Chief Executive)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

It was reported that Councillor K Chana was substituting for Councillor D Bateman  Councillor Mrs J H Whitehouse was substituting for Councillor R Frankel and Councillor  D Jacobs was substituting for M Woollard.

(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.

Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor R Bassett declared a  personal interest in agenda item (Nazeing Action Plan – Progress Report) by virtue of being the Chairman of the Nazeing Action Group). He declared that his interest was not prejudicial and he would remain in the meeting.

To consider the attached notes of the last meeting held on 5 September 2007.

Noted.

(Chairman/Lead Officer) To consider the up to date work  plan.

Planning Performance – monitoring of enforcement Statistics – Item 6

To review this element of the work plan.

Last year the Panel agreed to receive a progress report on the pilot for the above, now that this has been completed the Panel is asked to determine whether this work still requires space in their work plan.

In the event the Panel agrees to carry out a further review of the ongoing issues, they are reminded to ascribe a reporting deadline to this work. Otherwise they are advised to remove it from their work plan to free up time for more pressing work.

(a)            Planning Performance – Monitoring of Statistics Enforcement Figures

The Panel considered the need for continued monitoring of the new arrangements for reporting the above in the Council Bulletin. Initially it was agreed that the arrangements should be subject to a six monthly review to ascertain Members views on the trial. Officers reported on the outcome of this exercise.

It was noted that the feedback revealed that Members were supportive of the arrangements. In view of this success the Panel supported the intention to continue to report the statistics in the Bulletin and concluded that there was no need to keep the merits of the approach under review.

J Preston undertook to follow up a request made by a Member in June 2007 to the enforcement team about a matter of concern

(b)       Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005  – Implementation of provisions  Item 6

Sub – Group held its first meeting on 18 October 2007.

ACTION:

Work Plan to be updated to reflect the above.

To receive a presentation from Mr D Forkin, the West Essex Highways Manager, on parking issues

It is intended that this presentation will focus on parking issues specially those raised in relation to the Panels review of these issues.

Issues for consideration:

(a)        the current traffic problems in Epping. 

(b)        the process for Traffic Regulation Orders

(c)        the costs of TROs (TROs)

(d)        parking reviews, looking to the future

(e)        parking on estates and on verges etc

(f)         speed management policy

(g)        freight and LGVs generally

(h)              maintenance of the more minor roads

(i)              communications with Harlow based officers

The Chairman introduced to the meeting Mr D Forkin, the Area Highways Manager for West Essex. Mr Forkin was in attendance to report on District Parking Issues and answers questions from Members. The agenda referred to a number of ‘topical’ issues of concern. Mr Forkin addressed these as follows:

(a)            Congestion

Epping was currently experiencing high levels of ‘traffic gridlock’. This was due to the work to repair the signals  (the ‘loops’ in the carriageways) for the Traffic Lights in the area. The intention was to replace these as soon as possible.

The Director for Environment and Street Scene reported that part of the area had been declared an ‘Air Quality Management Area’ as it had breached air quality standards. This could be attributed to the increase in congestion. Equipment for this action had been set up in that area.

Mr Forkin agreed to arrange for an engineer to look at the traffic lights near St Margaret’s Hospital, Epping to ensure both sides allow sufficient time for passing traffic.

A Member asked whether the County liaised with the London Borough of Redbridge to ensure a coordinated approach to highways services across the District. Concern had been expressed about the Boroughs efforts to ease congestion in the south of the District leading to London which was causing further congestion. Mr Forkin reported that the County was in the process of developing schemes to relieve congestion with neighbouring authorities.

A Member stressed the need for the details of schemes to be placed in the local newspapers of the areas affected and for closer cross border liaison between the Highway Authorities to facilitate this.

A Member referred to the Loughton Town Centre Enhancement Scheme and the ‘five way light system’ in the centre of the Town. He questioned whether the County should contribute to this matter to ease the situation. Mr Forkin shared these concerns and considered possible sources of funding for this work. One option was to fund this through the Locally Determined Budget.

It was noted that the County only used sign diversions for road closures and only closed classified roads where it was possible to divert the traffic affected onto a road of equal status (another classified road).

(b)       Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs)

Mr Forkin explained that this process was governed by legislation and was lengthy. The legislation required proposed TROs to be advertised in the local paper in two editions. A Member questioned this approach as local newspapers only reached a limited number of people. He suggested a leaflet detailing proposed TROs be distributed to every household to ensure everyone was made aware of the proposals. Proposed orders could also be advertised in the Forester Magazine. Mr Forkin advised that such changes would require a change in legislation.

It was noted that in June 2007, the service was transferred from the County’s Transportation Service to its legal team. Initial feedback indicated that this move had substantially quickened the process. It was noted that the Legal Team were in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

To consider the minutes of the last meeting of the Joint Committee.

The Panel considered the minutes.

Officers referred to the timetable for the Inter – Authority Agreements and explained the KAT modelling process, the outcome of which was to brought to Members in due course.

The Joint Committee had also agreed that the Partner Authorities of the Joint Committee would share with each other their respective results from the KAT modelling exercises.

To consider the attached report.

The Panel considered the progress report and an updated version of the Nazeing Focus Day Action Plan. This covered the monitoring Framework, the Essex County Freight Strategy, Bridge Issues, Enforcement, Cross Border Issues, Goods Vehicle issues, Planning, Implementation and  Outstanding Action. 

The Forward Planning Manager reported on a recent telephone conversation with Inspector Stephen Pearce of Essex Police. Inspector Pearce was considering an invitation to give a presentation to the next meeting (20th December) of the Panel and had asked the Forward Planning Manager for contact details of the local councillors so that he could discuss the issues with them. The Forward Planning Manager undertook to contact Inspector Pearce again to chase up these matters."

"In relation to 3(a) of the Action Plan (Inspection of Fish and Eels Bridge), the Forward Planning Manager had been advised by County officers that structural assessment was carried out every two years. Routine repairs were then carried out on an as needs basis. More major works go into the Works Programme. A load-carrying assessment had been carried out once in recent years, and the records are being checked to establish when this was. The ECC contact is Clive Woodruff (01245 437185).

It was noted that ECC Trading Standards officers had carried out a successful pilot in the Braintree Area on the enforcement of HGVs breaching weight restrictions. As a result the project was to be rolled out on a county wide basis. Mr Forkin reported that he had arranged a meeting with Trading Standards and would report the details of this to a future meeting. The Panel welcomed this initiative

The Panel were asked to agree to the establishment of a working group to oversee the implementation of the plan, but felt that such action was not necessary and agreed that the Panel should simple receive further progress reports on the issues. It was noted that if necessary the Panel could review this decision at their next meeting on 20 December 2007.

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

Chairman to report to next OSC on 8 November 2007 on tonight’s discussions.

20 December 2007, 28 February, 23 April 2008.

20 December 2007, 28 February, 23 April 2008.