Agenda and minutes

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

There were no substitute members present.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To declare interests in any items of the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview and 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.

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

To agree the notes of the last meeting held on 9 September 2008 (attached).

The Chairman and Members felt that, following on from the last meeting of the Panel, the notes from that meeting had not reflected accurately that the updated Best Value in Planning, prepared for the Task and Finish Panel, should be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee without further work, but with an explanation from the Chairman as to why this had been appropriate in these particular circumstances.

AGREED:

That, the notes of the meeting held on 9 September 2008 be agreed subject to the amendment of Note 17, to reflect the Panel agreement to submit the Value for Money Best Value Review report without amendment, to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

There was no other business.

The Terms of Reference are attached.

It was suggested that the Improvement Plan should be added to the Terms of Reference of the Standing Panel under item 7 and the terms to be amended in line with the Work Programme.

The Work Programme is attached.

The following items from the Work Programme were discussed by the Panel:

Item 1 (i) New Local Development Scheme and East of England Plan

The Director of Planning Services, Mr J Preston, advised the Panel that the final version of the East of England Plan was currently incomplete. There was a legal challenge to the East of England Plan of which the District Council was awaiting the results.

The Gypsy/Traveller consultation had begun and was concluding in early 2009. Mr J Preston told the Panel that the Gypsy and Traveller Consultation had started two weeks previously. The Consultation was taking up an enormous amount of time for both Council officers and elected members. Extra resources had been put into the consultation process, for example provision of staff at public exhibitions. Mr J Preston said that the consultation was causing a certain level of stress for staff.

Councillor Mrs P Smith supported Mr J Preston’s comments. She praised the Forward Planning Team for their organisation especially their one on one dialogue with residents in explaining the consultation process to them.

Councillor Mrs A Cooper informed the Panel that there was concern that notices had not been issued regarding a Gypsy/Traveller Consultation event in Nazeing, she also felt that extra staff were needed in Planning Services.

Mr J Preston informed the Panel that at a recent Examination in Public, other Local Authorities had objected to the District Council revealing information from an ongoing update of Gypsies and Travellers’ needs assessments. The District Council’s consultant, Mr A Lainton, had suggested that other districts such as Uttlesford with only 15 proposed sites, could have a higher number. He had argued that Epping Forest District Council, with 49 proposed pitches, should have had, perhaps, 30 pitches.

Councillor H Ulkan thought that a nationwide strategy integrating Gypsies and Travellers into conventional, settled society, was a better solution to the current problem. Mr J Preston stated that he could not comment on the wider political and social dimensions of integrating Gypsies and Travellers. However he echoed Councillor H Ulkan’s opinions that those Gypsies and Travellers who lived on authorised sites were not a problem to other residents, their children went to local schools and generally, they had settled well. However they had traditionally found employment in agriculture, a type of work which was becoming increasingly less available, some had formed into large groups and had sometimes occupied land which did not belong to them. When they were evicted, it had been common for them to leave large amounts of rubbish behind. Because of this, local residents had negative rather than positive feelings towards them. An interesting fact that had emerged from the consultation, thus far, had been that many district residents did not know that there were so many Gypsy and Traveller sites already in the district. There was a strong public perception that the settled community were being ignored.

The Chairman commented that the current cycle of occupying land and then being evicted or evading,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development). To note the attached report.

Mr J Preston, presented a report to the Panel regarding an update of the Local Development Framework (LDF). Further progress on a replacement Local Development Scheme had been delayed subject to further discussions with GO East in determining the options available to deliver the policy requirements of the East of England Plan (EEP), this had also delayed progress on the Core Strategy. Technical work creating a robust evidence base continued, this was being undertaken jointly with other relevant authorities where necessary.

A report to the Cabinet in December 2007 identified the funding required to deliver a successful LDF. Expenditure to date, commitments and anticipated work over the rest of the financial year amounted to some £337,000. A further DDF bid had been made for £91,000 in the forthcoming 2009/10 financial year replacing the amount taken from the LDF fund for development briefs in Debden and Epping.

Recent announcements had shown that the Council were receiving £93,284 (£93,469 now had been received) from Housing and Planning Delivery Grant. It was difficult to assess the amounts that may have been forthcoming in future rounds, but an assessment was made of the criteria under which EFDC may benefit in future.

Discussions between the District Council, Harlow District Council, East Herts District Council and GO East were on-going. Matters had been slightly delayed by the additional uncertainty caused by Hertfordshire County Council’s application for a judicial review of the East of England Plan. The District Council were receiving notification of a judicial review court date in the autumn, with resolution in early 2009.

Members had previously expressed concern at the length of time it would take to prepare and adopt a Core Strategy, and felt that the feasibility of adopting the document over a two year period, rather than three years, was worth exploring. Changes to the regulations governing the preparation of LDF documents now meant that only two formal rounds of public engagement were required.

Given the current uncertainties, it was too early considering whether further staffing resources were needed in the Forward Planning Team. There were five officers and two support officers in the policy team a further four officers reported to the Forward Planning Manager. However there were three officer vacancies in the entire team. The team was currently supplemented by a consultant working on a short term contract to progress the Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocations Development Plan Document.

Progress on the LDF was limited by issues which were outside of the direct control of the District Council, the challenge to the EEP and co-ordinated working arrangements being entered into. Following resolution of these issues, there should be consideration of available staff resources.

Councillor R Frankel was concerned that delays in the LDF were having an impact on the Local Plan. Mr J Preston told the Panel that there was a three year time limit on the Local Plan Alterations policies from the date of their adoption. This could be extended by a Direction from the Secretary of State, however  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development). Report to follow.

Mr J Preston, Director of Planning Services, presented a report to the Panel regarding the Improvement Plan for the Directorate of Planning and Economic Development. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had agreed that the Directorate would produce an Improvement Plan for the following eighteen months. The Panels’ investigations had shown there had already been significant change within Planning over the last few years. However, there was scope for further change and improvement. The plan was identifying 13 areas of potential improvement, based on feedback on current performance and proposed action addressing this alongside the resources needed and an timescale.

Mr J Preston said that the process of getting into the top quartile was being picked up by the Key Performance Indicators. There had been concern from members regarding the District Council’s use of consultants. Evidence was needed as to the circumstances under which they were hired. In some cases, the Portfolio Holder would be asked to waive the relevant Contract Standing Orders.

Mr J Preston was asked about public feedback on services. A lot of feedback should be done via the website. The Chairman thought more work was needed on website feedback. Mr S Tautz, Performance Improvement Manager had captured some of this information already. It was suggested that by re-visiting 10% of calls made, officers could extract feedback on the service.

The Chairman pointed out to the Panel that the aim of the Improvement Plan was in changing aspirations to actual tasks completed.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development). To note the attached report.

The Director of Planning Services, Mr J Preston, provided the Panel with an update on the current staffing situation within Planning Services. The Assistant Director, Mr B Land, was still unwell, Mr J Preston was awaiting an updated medical report. The other Assistant Director Post which was vacant, had been advertised and interviews had taken place. The District Council had received ten applications and interviewed six applicants. However it was found that none of the interviewees were suitable for the post. Mr J Preston told the Panel that the Micro Site had indicated that 200 people had looked at the post advert on the internet but most had not applied for the position.

There was also a member of staff on maternity leave within Development Control, and one person had been appointed to fill that vacancy. A Building Surveyor’s was also vacant due to maternity leave. The Panel were reminded of the resources employed in mentoring and directing new members of staff. The recruiting of staff had been a problem possibly because of the comparatively lower salaries that the District Council offered. The Chairman commented that there had been huge redundancies in many planning companies and consequently, within a very short period, it was expected that the District Council would be receiving more enquiries about vacant posts.

It was felt that suitable analysis should have been made to find the reasons why some potential applicants had been deterred from applying. The Panel was told that surveying techniques on the internet may have been counter productive, an exit interview on the website would help. Mr D Macnab assured members that the Council’s Executive were closely monitoring the volume of business and would adjust the Council’s staffing structure to meet any change. Members thought that directorates could have been more creative in attempting to retain existing staff, but did acknowledge that good staff would inevitably leave for better paid work.

The dates of future meetings of the Panel are as follows:

6 January 2009

12 February 2009; and

13 March 2009

The Panel noted that the dates of the following meetings were as follows:

6 January 2009;

12 February 2009; and

13 March 2009