Agenda and minutes

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

It was noted that Councillor K Angold-Stephens had substituted for Councillor Mrs C Pond.

(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 Conduct.

To agree the notes of the last meeting held on 12 March 2009 (attached).

RESOLVED:

That the notes of the last meeting of the Panel held on 12 March 2009 be agreed.

The Terms of Reference are attached.

The Panel discussed the Terms of Reference. The following was amended:

1.         The last two lines of paragraph 1 – “this is to allow the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development to remain tuned in to local views,” were amended to state that “those Portfolio Holders with planning and economic development responsibilities to remain tuned in to local views.”

7.         It was felt that the following four points required revising in the future:

• The “Hit Squad”
• The Service restructure(s)
• The new IT system
• The application of the Planning Delivery Grant

11.       The “Budget Process 2008/09” should read 2009/10.

12/13   Should be amalgamated.

The Work Programme is attached.

The Work Programme was noted.

This item had been brought before the Panel at the request of Councillor Mrs A Cooper. The Chairman invited Councillor Mrs A Cooper to introduce the item to the Panel. She outlined the details of the recent fires at Birchwood Estate, Hoe Lane, Nazeing.

There had been two fires on the estate, one on 5 January 2009, the other on 30 May 2009. Councillor Mrs A Cooper advised that there had been considerable impact on local people, some had complained of smells, sore eyes etc. The fire had not been completely extinguished initially, but instead allowed to burn itself out in a controlled manner.

The following officers, of whom three were from external agencies, were present at the meeting to answer questions:

• Alex Chown – Team Leader, Lower Lee Catchment (Environment Agency)
• Susan Day – Environment Agency
• Andrew Senior – Station Manager, Waltham Abbey Fire Station, Essex Fire and Rescue
• John Gilbert – Director of Environment and Street Scene (District Council)

Mr A Chown of the Environment Agency (EA) informed the Panel that deposits of fire debris had been found on local buildings close to the fire, these deposits resembled charcoal. When asked if the EA had taken samples from the area, he confirmed that they had not. He informed the Panel that under legislative criteria there were 4 categories of seriousness with 1 being the most serious, the May 2009 blaze was a Category 2 incident. He advised that smothering the fire area with water until extinguished would lead to a run off of water to surrounding areas and potential pollution of watercourses and water table.

Mr A Senior, Station Manager, Waltham Abbey Fire Station, Essex Fire Services, confirmed that the Fire Service had taken the fire very seriously, there had been 42 appliances at the site during the period of the blaze. He confirmed the EA’s concerns about water run off from the site which could cause pollution. A Senior of the Fire Service advised that in this type of incident it was better to allow a fire to burn itself out in a controlled manner rather than extinguish it completely using water. In this instance, a controlled burn was preferable, there were large piles on site, thousands of tons of earth, concrete, steel, mixed in with wood. The Fire Service did not have the mechanisms or budget for turning over and extinguishing a fire of this nature.

Mr J Gilbert, Director of Environment and Street Scene, informed the Panel that his Directorate was limited in what they could do in these circumstances. During the January 2009 fire air quality readings from four places had been taken around the area of the fire, including one at a school adjacent to the fire site, another at a major road, and one sample was taken from afar to get a normal background reading. The readings had shown that pollutants in the air, particularly PM10 (i.e. matter less than 10 microns in size which can find its way into the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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

R Sharp, Senior Accountant, presented the Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Actual Outturn 2008/09.

Members were informed that the main reason for the actual outturn for 2008/09 being lower than the Revised Estimate was the under-spending on DDF items. The difference between the DDF actual outturn for 2008/09 and the DDF budgets would be carried forward to 2009/10 to meet the re-profiled spending in 2009/10. Members were informed that the carry forwards had already been approved at the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee on 15 June 2009.

It was also reported that the Building Control ring fenced account eventually ended the year with a loss of £10,451 which when added to the deficit rolled forward from 2007/08, gave a shortfall to be recovered in 2009/10 of £25,000. The budget had been aiming at producing a surplus for 2009/10 of £15,000 which, because of the loss in 2008/09 will now need to be increased to £25,000 to clear the deficit rolled forward at 1 April 2009.

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

The Building Control report was deferred to the next meeting of the Panel.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development). To consider and comment on the attached report and to note the Guide to Enforcement for the Public.

Mr S Solon, Principal Planning Officer, presented a report to the Panel regarding the Course a Planning Investigation Can Take.

At the last meeting of the Planning Services Scrutiny Standing Panel, it was resolved that a report should be submitted to the Panel setting out the possible route any planning enforcement investigation could take. S Solon had also provided the Panel with a flow chart of the enforcement process. Members requested that a timescale be attached to the flow chart and the chart re-submitted to the Panel.

S Solon outlined the procedure for investigating breaches of planning rules. An officer was allocated to a case and the site concerned inspected. If no breach was found, no further action was taken, similarly, if there had been a breach but it was time immune, then no action was taken. If a breach identified was not time immune then its planning merits were assessed inviting the owner to submit a planning application. In cases where the breach was unlikely to be given planning permission, the owner was asked to remedy the breach, where the breach was an offence, consideration was given to prosecution.

Enforcement Action

In the event of failure to comply with requests for submittal of an application, or failure to take steps to remedy harm caused, the expediency of taking enforcement action was considered. A report was produced recommending the enforcement action needed for dealing with the breach and setting out the grounds of an appeal open to a person served with a notice.

Following consideration of a report recommending enforcement action, the Director of Planning and Economic Development, or a nominated authorised person authorised the action and the Director of Corporate Support Services was instructed to issue an appropriate notice.

Appeals and Grounds of Appeals

Appeals against enforcement notices and listed building enforcement notices are heard by the Secretary of State who normally appoints an Inspector to deal with the matter. Appeals against S215 notices (“untidy land notices”) are heard in the Magistrate’s Court. Appeals against decisions of the Secretary of State or Magistrate’s decisions are heard in the High Court.

Consequences of Appeals Against Notices

If an appeal was allowed and the notice quashed, the case was reviewed. If further enforcement action was considered expedient then it was taken. If an appeal was dismissed and the notice upheld or varied, the notice became effective on the date the appeal decision was made. Failure to comply with the requirements of a notice was an offence. However in such cases consideration was given to whether it was in the public interest to prosecute those failing to comply. Enforcement notices became effective if no appeal was made within 28 days from service of the notice.

Broadly the time limits for taking enforcement action are 4 years in the case of operational development without planning permission and 10 years in the case of making a material change in the use of land without planning permission. Although there were resource issues within Planning Services  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development). To consider and comment on the attached report.

The Panel received a report from Mr S Solon, Principal Planning Officer, regarding staffing within Planning Enforcement.

At the last meeting of the Planning Services Standing Scrutiny Panel, it was resolved that a report should be submitted to the Panel dealing with the matter of planning expertise within Planning Enforcement Team.

The Council’s Planning Enforcement Team was part of the Development Control Group of the Planning and Economic Development Directorate and was made up of 7 staff. This comprised a Principal Planning Officer, Senior Enforcement Officer, 3 Enforcement Officers, a Compliance Officer and a dedicated administrative officer.

The Team had only one full time qualified planning officer dedicated to carrying out planning enforcement work, the Team’s Senior Enforcement Officer. The role of the Principal Planning Officer normally included responsibility for preparing and presenting reports on planning applications to Committee on a 3 weekly cycle resulting in approximately half that post being used for work outside of the Team. Consequently, the Team had insufficient capacity to deal with peaks of work requiring the input of senior level planning expertise. This constrained the Council’s ability to take effective and timely enforcement action, especially where the matter being investigated was complex. It also constrained the Council’s ability to defend enforcement action at appeal.

The number of new investigations started and investigations closed over the last 3 years had been consistent at about 750 started and a similar amount closed. However, the proportion of investigations closed for the reason that the breach had been resolved had remained at less than 25% (ranging between 18% and 22%) and the number of enforcement notices issued each year was consistently low at approximately 26. Approximately 60% of all enforcement notices issued were appealed and a similar proportion of planning enforcement appeals were decided by way of a hearing or public inquiry. Although the Council’s enforcement appeal success rate was very high with nearly all appeals being dismissed and the notice upheld, that success generated a need for further work to be carried out to be taken to ensure compliance with the requirements of notices. Such work included court action.

Officers were generally aware from informal discussions with Members and members of the public that there was a desire for the Council to increase its planning enforcement activity. Although that was an unreliable indicator of demand for the service, officers were aware that if the Council failed to take appropriate and timely enforcement action where it was expedient to do so it could be found guilty of maladministration by the local government ombudsman and required to compensate members of the public. Officers were also aware that, from time to time, concern was expressed about the progress and outcome of planning enforcement investigations by members of the public in the form of complaints or even in the local press.

The Panel were presented with 5 options for dealing with the lack of planning expertise in the Planning Enforcement Team:

Option 1:

Delete Existing Post PEF/06 Compliance Officer (0.5 FTE)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

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

The Panel received a report from J Preston, Director of Planning and Economic Development, regarding Recruitment to the Assistant Director (Policy and Conservation) Post.

At the last meeting of the Panel on 12 March 2009 the Members requested that a report be put before the Panel explaining the problems encountered in recruiting for the Assistant Director (Policy and Conservation) Post. Since that meeting the Leader of the Council had agreed that the post should be advertised rather than be frozen.

The post with the amended higher grade was subsequently advertised in:

• The Epping Forest Guardian on 2 April

• Opportunities on 6 and 13 April editions (a small box directed those interested to the website for fuller details

• The “Careers for Leaders” website

• Job Centre Plus; and

• EFDC’s own website and related Essex links thereto.

The Interview Panel expected that the recession, particularly since last November, would produce a significant response. However, by the closing date of 23 April, only four applications were received, all from external candidates. One of the candidates was not judged to meet the person specification, the individual had experience as a Transport Director for a private company, but did not have the many attributes required in particular experience of Local Planning. Following this the interview panel interviewed the other 3 candidates, but on receipt of the request to provide a presentation on the key threats to EFDC in delivering a Local Development Framework, one candidate dropped out. The other two candidates were tested and interviewed on the week commencing 4 May, but unfortunately, neither persuaded the Panel that they could “hit the ground running” on the prime/essential requirement concerning the Local Development Framework.

The interview panel were concerned that applications did not appear to be made from those with good detailed and recent experience, ready to take the post as the next step on their career path. This could reflect that those with such experience, who live further away, and would need to move house, were not prepared to attempt this in the present climate. However this would not explain why reasonable numbers of candidates from London, Essex or Hertfordshire, within commuting distance, have not applied.

Accordingly an approach now being used, was to ask recruitment agencies to ascertain if they had potential candidates including the Assistant Director (Development Control) vacancy at the same time (although there were likely to be internal applicants for that post).

The continuing absence of such postholders within the Directorate plainly placed constraints on the managerial capacity of the Directorate, and put pressure on the existing managers therein.

The District Council had been advised that this particular role was difficult to fill. The Chairman felt it strange that it had proved difficult to recruit. Contacting firms where redundancies had been issued, may be successful. The Director compared the salary for this post to a similar post at Chelmsford - £62,000 – which although acknowledging the difficulties of raising the salary to that level, did demonstrate the problem of recruiting. It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

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

The Panel received a report from Ms V Willis, Economic Development Officer, regarding the Current Economic Situation of the District.

The report provided the following:

(a)        Background on the current economic position within the district and highlighted some of the approaches being taken in responses;

(b)        A broader introduction to the remit of the Economic Development function within the Planning and Economic Development Directorate.

Economic Profile of Epping Forest District

The district’s economy and in particular, the implications of the current economic situation on the local economy, had been the focus of the new Credit Crunch Task and Finish Group within the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP). The Economic Development function was represented on this group.

General Employment Profile

·         Epping Forest District (EFD) had a considerably lower proportion of individuals in the manufacturing sector compared to the national profile (EFD 5.1%, GB 10.6%). Conversely, it had higher employment in the construction industry at 12.6% compared to 4.9% nationally. The district had a stronger than national profile representation in both “distribution, hotels and restaurants” (EFD 24.8%, GB 23.3%) and “finance, IT and other business sectors” (EFD 23.3%, GB 21.6%).

·         The district had a lower proportion employed within the “public administration, education and health sectors” (19.6%) compared to the national profile (26.9%).

Unemployment – Rates

·         The Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) rate within the district had increased from 1.5% (1,119 individuals) in April 2008 to 3.3% (2,489 individuals) in April 2009. This 122% increase compared to a county increase of 126%. The current county JSA rate was 3.5%.

·         The current JSA rates in Essex, London and Hertfordshire (April 2009) were as follows: Harlow (5.4%), Broxbourne (3.5%), Chelmsford (2.9%), Brentwood and East Herts (both 2.3%), Uttlesford (2.2%), Redbridge (4.1%), Waltham Forest (5.5%) and Enfield (4.8%).

Unemployment – Detail on Claimants

·         If JSA claimant rates were considered at ward level, there were clear clusters of wards with higher rates in the Waltham Abbey and Loughton/Debden areas. Shelley, Lambourne, Grange Hill and Buckhurst Hill East also had JSA claimant rates higher than the district figure.

·         Individuals aged between 25 and 49 years accounted for 53.5% of claimants in Epping Forest in April 2008. This increased to 55% (1,365 individuals) in April 2009 whilst the other two age bands (18-24 years, 50 years+), although clearly increasing in number of claimants, decreased in terms of proportion of total claimants.

·         The number of 12 month – plus claimants had decreased slightly in the period April 2008 to April 2009 from 155 to 150 individuals.

·         The number of individuals claiming JSA for “less than 6 months” and “between 6 months and 12 months” in Epping Forest had increased by 147% (to 1,955) and 120% (to 385) respectively between April 2008 and April 2009.

Response in the Current Economic Climate

The Task and Finish Group was considering the economy in terms of the needs of local residents as well as businesses. The group was set to report to the LSP Board with proposed “quick win” measures in June 2009 before reporting for a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

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

This item was deferred to the next meeting of the Panel.

The Chairman requested that an email group should be created for the Members of the Panel for exchanging information etc.

The next programmed meeting of the panel is on 8 September 2009 and thereafter on:

10 November;

5 January 2010;

11 February; and

27 March

The next programmed meeting of the Panel was scheduled for:

Tuesday 8 September 2009 at 7.30p.m.;

Tuesday 10 November 2009 at 7.30p.m.;

Tuesday 5 January 2010 at 7.30p.m.;

Thursday 11 February 2010 at 7.00p.m.; and

Tuesday 27 April 2010 at 7.30p.m.