Agenda and minutes

To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

The Sub-Committee noted that there were no substitute members appointed for the meeting.

(Head of Research and Democratic Services)  In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview & Scrutiny members are asked to 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 Overview and Scrutiny 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 Overview and Scrutiny 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’s code of Member Conduct.

Attached.

Noted.

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

Noted.

Councillor Angold – Stephens to report.

Cllr Angold-Stephens presented a report and photographs detailing parking problems  within the District. He reported that the information was obtained during a site visit undertaken by a sub-group of the Panel on 23 August 2005. He explained that:

(a)        There appeared to be no obvious solutions to most problems observed during  the visits. All cases needed to be  treated separately and on its own merits.

(b)               In areas where there was only  narrow strips of  green swath  which had already been destroyed,  tarmacing might be necessary and improve the street scene. Large grass areas however should be preserved.

(c)               In relation to vehicle cross over policy, attention needed to be paid to charges to be made to applicants, information supplied to households, whether the six metre rule needed to be changed, drainage issues and  whether policies needed to be brought together in one document. Formulating policies for areas where there was a mix of Council owned and private land could be difficult. The Panel were able to change existing Council policy for land in Council ownership, however, would need  information on statutory  requirements and costs  to fully consider the issue. More extensive negotiations would be needed for land outside the Council’s control. 

In response to the presentation, Members raised the following questions and points:

(a)               A criteria/protocol could be established to guide action required for individual cases. Residents views should be sought on proposed solutions.

(b)                Areas to be maintained could be protected by soft bollards or reinforced tarmac.

(c)               Land Ownership - information needed to be ascertained about ownership before polices could be formulated. Cllr Angold – Stephens undertook to attempt to obtain a map.

(d)        Should additional parking spaces be created on Council owned land? Can the Council take action to ease parking problems generally without jeopardising the green belt?

(c)        Local Highways Agreement – information needed to be obtained about the scope of future discussions on parking issues between the Council and ECC Highways.

(d)            Residential Permits – how can they be applied to ease congestion in particular areas?

(e)               Can steps be taken to prevent the conversion of garages into living spaces where there is no driveway long enough to accommodate a car? What does current planning policy suggest in relation to this issue?

(g)        Who funds facilities for mixed estates? (i.e. areas which consisted of both private and Council housing)

It was also suggested that car parking on pavements and painting on roads to control parking should be taken into account. It was also stated that cases to be dealt with should be prioritised and take note of LUL services and that a data base could be set up to list and prioritise problems.

Cllr Angold – Stephens agreed to list all points raised at the meeting  and send them to members of the Panel for comment and then to all Members. It was agreed that responses would be considered by the next meeting.  It was also agreed that questions which related to services under  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Councillor Maclaine to report.

Cllr Maclaine circulated a form he had produced to enable Members to report a concern. He stated that it was based on a pro forma  previously used successfully by Environmental Services which he also tabled for elucidation. He envisaged  that the proposed form would  direct enquiries to Democratic Services who would allocate a number to each form , refer it on to the relevant service and keep an active list of reported issues. The Panel supported the proposals.

Cllr Maclaine anticipated that in time the pro-forma would be made available electronically to Members. This would contribute to the Council’s implementing e-government strategy. It was stated that the proposals needed to identify resources implications and officers to be involved.

To consider a forward programme of meetings dates for the Panel.

Noted that the next meeting would be held on 18 October 2005 at 7.00 p.m.