Agenda and minutes

(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.

No declarations of interest were made.

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

It was reported that Councillor Mrs C Pond was substituting for Councillor R Barrett.

To consider and agree the notes of the meeting of the Panel held on 21 October 2008.

The notes from 21October 2008 were noted and agreed as a correct record subject to:

1)      under minute 22, Councillor Jacobs had actually contacted Broadland District Council in Norfolk;

2)      and the Council in South Devon mentioned was South Hams District Council (in Devon);

3)      under minute 23, officers still to arrange a suitable date for the seminar to members. The seminar to be provided by the Solicitors who have been appointed to advise the Districts on the Inter Authority Agreement.

(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.

Councillor Frankel asked that road accident monitoring, including the monitoring of the number of deaths be included in the Panel’s terms of reference.  The Panel could ask for this data broken down into wards. It was noted that this fitted in with item 6 of the terms of reference on reviewing and commenting on County Council Highways strategic policies on speed and freight management.

            RESOLVED:

That the parent Overview and Scrutiny Committee be asked to endorse the addition of monitoring of road accidents on to the Panels Terms of Reference.

(1)        Safer, Cleaner, Greener (general):

(a) – interviewed 15 people, 4 people had been offered positions and 3 had accepted;

(b) – formal launch in March;

(c) – have asked the Police to start the accreditation process;

(d) – officers had carried out taxi enforcement the previous weekend.

(2)        Safer Communities:

(a) – officers now have a draft policy on CCTV;

(b) – anti-social behaviour in car parks this has now been subsumed into the general heading of anti-social behaviour and this could be deleted from the work programme as a separate item.

(3)        Essex Waste Procurement Process and Joint Committee:

(a) – the last joint meeting was cancelled;

(c) – work is continuing on the Inter Authority Agreements ahead of the February 2009 deadline for sign-off.

(5)        Waste Management Partnership Board:

(a) – the minutes of the last meeting were tabled. This was an extraordinary meeting held on 6 November 2008. The Panel were told that they should treat it as a restricted document. The Panel noted that:

·         The Performance Scorecard for the contract had now been settled;

·         That more garden waste needed to be collected by SITA and that had resulted in the abandonment of the use of 70/30 split vehicles. The action had significant cost implications;

·         Officers were in negotiations with SITA about this and the outcome would eventually go to Cabinet for their final decision;

·         That a new contract manager was now in place overseeing improvements on the management of the contract;

·         If anyone in flats wished to recycle, the Council would provide clear plastic sacks and arrange for them to be picked up.

(6)        Nottingham Declaration:

Noted that:

·         there is a survey on staff travel underway;

·         the climate change draft will be out for consultation this month;

·         the Council may sign up to the ECC web site on shared journeys.

(9)        Bobbingworth Tip:

Noted that:

·         The tree planting was taking place at present, and this was nearly completed;

·         They can only seed the area at a certain time of the year and until that was completed it could not be opened to public.

(10)      Policing Green Paper:

Noted that:

·         The Home Office had issued a preliminary response to the consultation undertaken;

·         Despite the negative feedback, the Home Office were still persisting in pursuing the additional layer of elected members (i.e. Crime & Policing Representatives).

To consider and comment on the draft Safer Cleaner Greener Strategy document. This Document has been circulated to the Panel separately and should be brought to the meeting.

The Director of Environment and Street Scene, Mr J Gilbert, introduced the draft Safer Cleaner Greener Strategy document. Comments received to date suggested that:

• It needed a formal Policy Section and an Action Plan;
• Smart targets to enable it to be monitored;
• It needed a public response section;
• The colour and size of the print needed re-consideration to ensure clarity;
• They wanted to keep the A5 format, but it needed a revised design;
• It needed a better foreword, should be the Chairman or the Leader, followed by the Chief Executive;
• It needed to be a more corporate document, to get other Directors to sign up to it.

Councillor Mrs Richardson wanted to know how officers would deal with dangerous dogs. She was told that the Council had experienced staff (Animal Wardens) who dealt with dogs on a regular basis, although nowadays they mainly concentrate on fouling incidents.

Councillor Frankel said that he wanted to see more about the area split up and to make more of the environmental response units. Councillor Colling asked if the map on page 8 could be enlarged and put on the back page.

Councillor Frankel also thought that there was too much white space in the booklet. There could be more pictures and that page 4 was a good design. Also, were parked cars to be included? Mr Gilbert said that they had the problem of limited space; more pictures would limit the number of words. Once they have decided on a rough design with an agreed form of words they would give it to a professional designer.

Councillor Mrs Smith asked that the word ‘new’ be deleted from the last paragraph on page 10. The Environment and Neighbourhood Officers were not new anymore. She then asked if there could be bullet points included on all the offences that the officers could issue fines for. Mr Gilbert agreed.

Councillor Mrs Smith commented that the paragraphs may hang better when the Strategic Policy had been compiled. The list of the strategy priorities in the forward may affect the paragraphs in the text. Councillor Philip added that the Safer Cleaner Greener Strategy should appear first with the legal framework following on.

Councillor Mrs Sartin asked that the words ‘in the near future’ be taken out of the first paragraph on page 15 so it just reads “in the near future Our team of enforcement…” and that on page 8, first paragraph, it should read ‘structure’ instead of ‘restructure’. The Assistant Director of Neighbourhoods, Jim Nolan, said officers would go through the whole document and take out any words that would date it.

Councillor Ms Cohen said that she liked the front cover picture.

Mr Gilbert said that they would update the document and would get it to the February 2009 Safer Cleaner Greener meeting and then to the March Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting and then to the March Cabinet.

            RESOLVED:

That the Panel commented on the draft safer Cleaner Greener Strategy document and that it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

To note and comment on the attached document produced by Essex County Council.

The Panel agreed that this document needed more time devoted to it than they could at this meeting. Therefore, they asked that a separate meeting of the Panel be arranged in mid January 2009, to be devoted especially to the Epping Transport Strategy. If possible an appropriate, responsible officer should be invited to the meeting to field any questions.

            RESOLVED:

That a special meeting of the Panel be arranged for mid January for the Panel to consider the Epping Forest Transport Strategy in order to give a corporate response.

To receive an update on a recent meeting held on the Dobbs Weir and Nazeing traffic situation.

Councillor Mrs Smith apprised the Panel of the meeting she had recently attended on the Traffic Management Update on Dobbs Weir Road and Roydon and Nazeing. She received feedback from Essex Highways on the work done over the last year. In attendance was Councillor Hume, two trading standards officers, a Highways officer from Hertfordshire County Council, officers on traffic policy, representatives from Nazeing Parish Council, some Dobbs Weir residents, EFDC officers and Councillors and an MP.

The Panel noted that:

• Essex County Council was working to the action plan;
• In the new year they were launching a consultation on Heavy Goods traffic management options, including routing, speed reduction on the Dobbs Weir Road and the issuing of permits;
• Automatic Number Plate Recognition surveys are to be used more frequently, and we will be consulted on this in the new year;
• The County Freight strategy had been put back to an indefinite date;
• HGV’s still needs a permit to use Dobbs Weir Road.

            RESOLVED:

That the Panel noted the up date by Councillor Mrs Smith on Dobbs Weir and Roydon and Nazeing.

(Director of Environment and Street Scene) for consultation on the attached report.

The Director of Environment and Street Scene, Mr Gilbert, introduced the report going to the next Cabinet meeting. The Inter Authority Agreement is needed to secure funding from the County Council in support of new services such as the collection of kitchen waste.  The Service Development Plan (SDP) is required at two levels, the base position and the aspirational position looking forward, and is intended to set out, for the next 25 to 30 years, what the Waste Collection Authorities (WCA) intend to collect, how they intend to collect it and where they intend to take it for treatment and/or disposal.

Officers have produced a draft SDP for consideration informally by the County. This SDP was considered at a meeting with the County on the 18^th of November and it appeared that the County will be prepared to make a significant contribution to the delivery of the service changes which are required. Firstly, the County wants formal endorsement from members and this report will be going to Cabinet on 15 December 2008.

This report is about stage 1, the inclusion of food waste collection and to constrain garden waste. Stage 2 is about what the Council will do once this was achieved. The document stated the Council’s aspirations and some of the numbers they were looking at.

Councillor Jacobs commented that the report contradicted itself in paragraph 6 where it said that ‘the County would be prepared to make a significant contribution to the delivery of the service charges’, and then it states that ‘the County will make a “cost limited” offer which will be limited by the availability of funding’. Also the recycling of food waste, at best the council could only collect about 10%, was this enough? Mr Gilbert replied that the County’s view was that they expected a higher level of performance than was suggested by the use of the WRAP formula.

Councillor Jacobs said that Rochford Council had started collecting co-mingled food waste from July this year and they were very happy with it. It gives a better start to the composing process and they are getting a good 60% on their recycling. Mr Gilbert commented that Rochford had a SITA contract. As they had not collected garden waste before it may cause problems in respect of increases in their overall waste stream. But this type of collection could improve performances.

Councillor Jacobs then asked if the cost for transfer stations would be bourn by the County. Mr Gilbert said that this would depend on who funded and managed it.

On considering the report the Panel thought that there was a lot of acronyms used and would like some sort of crib sheet listing to help them.

            RESOLVED:

That the Panel noted the Inter Authority Agreement – Waste Service Development Plan.

Mr Gilbert reported that there was new piece of legislation now available to Councils from 1^st December 2008. An amendment to the Anti-Social Behaviour legislation means that the Council, working with the Police, can now close premises on anti-social grounds. This includes private houses and not just pubs and clubs. If this notice was served it would require people to move out.

He did not anticipate it would be used in EFDC with any regularity. The closure could last for three months or more. If any children are involved, the consent of social services would have to be sought.

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

To submit a suitable verbal report to the next Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting on the discussions had at the Panel’s meeting.

To note the forward programme of meetings dates for the Panel. They are:

24^th February 2009 and

21 April 2009.

Future meeting of the Panel were noted.