Agenda and minutes

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

The Panel noted there were no substitute members.

(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.

To agree the notes of the last meeting held on 21^st February 2012.

The notes of the 21 February 2012 meeting were agreed as a correct record.

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

The Panel noted their Terms of Reference and Work Programme.

Under their Work Programme the Panel noted that:

(i)                  Under item 7 on recycling in flats and HMOs that progress had been made on this and a report should be coming to the next meeting.

(ii)                Under item 8 on the use of Solar Panels  on Council owned properties – this was probably not a practical proposition anymore and if this was proved to be the case then it should be taken off the work programme.

Recommendation:

To note the upcoming consultation.

Essex County Council (ECC) was made a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. This gave them a strategic role concerning local flooding i.e. flooding from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. They have recognised the importance of partnership in tackling these issues which has led to them setting up the Essex Partnership for Flood Management.

One of the key roles ECC has as a LLFA is to produce a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. The strategy is a high-level document which explains the nature of flood risk, the roles of the different stakeholders involved, including householders and the county-wide actions that will be taken to improve knowledge, awareness and decision-making about flood risk in Essex. It does not identify actions for specific areas.

The focus of the document is on local flood risk i.e. flooding from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. It provides some information about coastal and fluvial flooding but this is mainly dealt with by the Environment Agency in its National Strategy which has already been published.

The document does however provide some information about those areas which have been identified as having significant levels of local flood risk by way of a map showing ‘Prioritisation of Areas Above Flood Risk Threshold’. In Epping Forest District the map identifies Loughton, Theydon Bois and Roydon as the highest priority areas (or Tier 1), Waltham Abbey as mid-priority (or Tier 2) and other smaller communities, including North Weald, Nazeing and Abridge as low-priority (or Tier 3). This map cannot be used to identify individual properties and it is believed the map is not yet publicly available.

The strategy is due to go through a full public consultation in the near future (date not yet set) and the consultation will be presented to the Safer Cleaner Greener Scrutiny Panel at an appropriate time.

The Panel noted the short report on the Essex County Council Flood Risk Management Strategy. The County as a Lead Local Flood Authority had to produce a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy explaining the nature of flood risks, the roles of the different stakeholders involved and the county wide actions that would be taken on flood risk in Essex. It did not specify actions for specific areas.

The strategy was due to go through a full public consultation in the near future and would be presented to this Panel at the appropriate time.

            RESOLVED:

That the upcoming consultation on the Flood Risk Management Strategy was noted.

(Director Environment and Street Scene)To consider the attached report.

The Panel noted the report on the revised arrangements for a Local Highways Panel (LHP). They noted that the county had set aside about 8.7% (or just under £700k) of their budget to be spent on local highway matters for this district. In addition there was also the allowance of £130,000 for the Highways Ranger Services to be added.

The LHP would comprise of 7 local County Division Members and an equal number District Members. There was to be no Town or Parish representation, however, the LHP’s Terms of Reference did stipulate that they should be consulted. Appointment of the district members could be made either on a pro-rata basis or by a geographical basis; to be decided by the Appointments Panel.

It was agreed that the terms of reference for this Panel should be amended to enable it to monitor and review the LHP’s work for the district.

It was noted that County officers would offer technical support to the LHP, but it was expected that the District would provide administrative support.

Councillor Avery raised the parking problems faced in Epping. It was noted that unfortunately the LHP was not set up to deal specifically with parking, although they may progress on to some aspects of parking once they were established.

The latest document received from County with further information on the LHP is attached to these minutes for information.

The Panel then considered if the LHP meetings should be held in public or in private and concluded that it should remain in public, enabling not only the public but the Town and Parish councils to attend.

            RESOLVED:

(1)               That the proposals for the Essex County  arrangements for Local Highway Panels be noted;

(2)               That the Panel recommend to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee that EFDC should join this new arrangement;

(3)               That  it should be recommended to Overview and Scrutiny Committee that meetings of the Local Highways Panel be held in Public and that the allocation of the membership should be referred to the Appointments Panel; and

(4)               That the Terms of Reference for this Panel should be amended to enable it to monitor and review the Local Highway Panel’s work for the district.

To receive a verbal update on the activity being undertaken in relation to the Olympic Games and Torch Relay.

The Director of the Environment and Street Scene, John Gilbert, brought the Panel up to date on the latest activity in relation to the Olympic Games. We were getting close to the opening of the Games on 27 July and things were beginning to build up in preparation. The white water centre will be handed back to the London 2012 Organising Committee (LOCOG) over the coming weekend for them to build the stands ready for the Games.

Awareness of parking restrictions was beginning to be raised and the ‘Look and Feel’ preparations would start to happen by the end of June.

The arrangements for the torch relay were proceeding well, with a Community Task Force handling the background work to this and Julie Chandler working with our local partners.

Councillor Smith asked what would happen to the Olympic Working Group after the Olympics; Mr Gilbert said that the Council’s internal working group would work right through to the end of the Paralympics. The bigger inter-authority group would be looking at legacy and community matters and encouragement for participating in sports would go on for some time after.

Councillor Breare-Hall asked if the Park and Ride service would be tested before hand. He was told that they would not as it would be trusted to work first time. It was noted that it would cost a lot to use this service, more than parking for a day in one of the Council owned car parks. Using the council’s car parks would enable the visitors to linger in the towns and use our shops/pubs afterwards. The Park and Ride buses would be running all day but just for the white water events.

Councillor Janet Whitehouse asked if there would be special parking arrangements for the torch relay. She was told that there were no special arrangements other than officers were hoping to make Council car parks free for that morning. The torch would only be with us for half an hour at Waltham Abbey and they had no way of ascertaining how many people would attend the event.  Officers also wanted to designate an area for disabled parking. They had a plan to publicise the event beforehand via a newsletter to every property on the route and also use our website and traditional press releases as well as telling the local parish and town councils for their local newsletters. The Public Relations team had drawn up a plan for this.

It was noted that the runners and their families would be looked after by LOCOG and not by this council.

(Director Environment and Street Scene)To receive a verbal report on the North Essex Parking Partnership.

The Panel were updated by Councillor Smith, on the latest news from the North Essex Parking Partnership on resident parking permits. It was noted that the contract with the parking enforcement company would end in October 2012, when TUPE arrangements would come into force. From October this would all come under the North Essex Parking Partnership and before that in July the Local Council Liaison Committee would receive a presentation from the partnership manager.

A new leaflet on parking penalty charges would be published for public use and this was available online at www.patrol-uk.info

At the moment, charges for resident’s permits across the various districts vary according to the local authority. The partnership was working on harmonisation of the charges across all areas, working up to having one price across the North Essex Parking Partnership. They were looking at a 3 to 4 year period to standardize the costs of the parking permits; likely to be at around the £65 mark.

It was also noted that the partnership was looking to purchase CCTV cameras mounted on cars to monitor certain trouble spots such as clearways outside schools and issue penalty notices on the spot.

The Panel noted that this was a positive picture, with the partnership having gelled well. It was better to be in this structure than out of it so that we could influence outcomes.

To consider and comment on the attached action plan.

The Panel noted the Safer Cleaner Greener Action Plan for 2012-13 and the following amendments made to the plan.

Item 4 – to deal with all police request for CCTV within 3 working days – to add under target date – ‘to receive half yearly reports’.

Item 5 - to ensure that all offensive and racist graffiti is removed within 48 hours of receipt of notification - to add under target date – ‘to receive half yearly reports’.

Item 6 – support the sanctuary scheme and work to increase awareness of domestic violence in the district – to add under progress column ‘that the funding had stopped and that this would be ongoing subject to future funding’.

Item 9 – to alter the action column to read – ‘Ensure that all necessary action is taken and that all related Olympic related activities are successfully carried out’.

It was also noted that items 11 and 12 said to ‘see separate sheet’ which unfortunately was not attached.

To note the attached report on recent enforcement activities.

The Panel noted the report on recent enforcement activities carried out by the Council. This contained comparison figures from 2010/11 and was also further broken down into figures for the winter and summer periods, as a lot of the enforcement work was seasonal. The figures were supplemented by brief case notes giving a flavour of the type of cases the officers dealt with; fleshing out the statistics.

It was noted that the Council did not have control over the level of the fines issued at the magistrate’s court but that the legal section did remind the magistrates of the maximum fines they could give. Officers also gave detailed cost breakdowns of the costs to the council, but had no influence over the costs awarded.

The Panel was also glad to see that taxi enforcement was happening and noted that a lot of inter agency work was also carried out in support of the various enforcement activities.

To note the attached set of minutes.

The Panel noted the minutes of the IAA Member working group meeting held on 3 November 2011.

Asked if the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) would be coming back to council again, Mr Gilbert replied that there was now no MoU and that a “Side Letter” would take its place. In essence there was no change as we had already signed up to this.

It was also noted that we were not part of the street sweeping tendering exercise as yet.

To note the attached set of minutes.

The Panel noted the Waste Management Partnership Board Minutes, dated 5 March 2012.

To note the attached set of draft minutes.

The Bobbingworth Former Landfill Site Local Liaison Group minutes, dated 2 November 2011, were noted.

To note the attached set of minutes.

The Panel noted the minutes of the Green Infrastructure Meeting , held on 25 January 2012.

No note the attached set of minutes.

The EFDC Green Corporate Working Party Minutes dated 6 February 2012 were noted by the Panel.

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

The item on the revised arrangements for the Local Highways Panel was to be reported to the next Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting.