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 12^th February 2013.

The notes of the 12 February 2013 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. This is attached. The Panel are asked at each meeting to review both documents.

Terms of Reference

1.         The Panel considered their Terms of Reference (ToR) on the Safer Cleaner Greener initiative development programme (ToR item 1, i, ii & iii) and if they were broad enough to cover the Environmental Agency brief. It was agreed that officers would review them.

2.         The Panel would also like the minutes of the Police and Crime Panel to be added to their Terms of Reference. Officers agreed that they should be added to the ToR and the main O&S Committee would be asked to agree this at their next meeting.

Work Programme

1.         They noted that item 21 on their work programme, review of waste contract ahead of procurement, was a duplication of what the Portfolio Holder Advisory Group did. As such, it was proposed that this be deleted from their work programmes as a duplication of work. This was agreed by the Panel.

2.         It was noted that a meeting with the Fire and Rescue Services was still to be arranged when possible.

Update on River Roding Flood Risk Management Strategy

The minutes of the SCG Scrutiny Standing Panel 17/10/11 resolved that a further report be submitted to this panel once the strategy was in place and the wider implications were known.

The strategy is not yet in place and the full implications are not yet known so a full report is not appropriate at this stage, however the following short update may be useful.

The Environment Agency’s (EA) internal decision board has formally signed off on the proposals for withdrawing maintenance, constructing a large flood storage area at Shonks Mill (south west of Ongar) and managing surface water in Redbridge.

The EA is drafting a ‘post-adoption statement’ which will explain the processes to put in place their proposals. This will give the Council a better indication of the timescales involved and when our residents will be affected.

There is a formal protocol that the EA must follow when it withdraws maintenance. It must undertake a six month ‘communication period’ where legal issues are resolved and residents are fully informed of the impacts from the withdrawal of maintenance. It must then give a further two year notice period before any maintenance is withdrawn. The EA has stated that during this two year period it will be working with affected residents on individual property protection measures to minimise any risk to the residents. After the two-year notice period the EA maintenance on the River Roding will cease.

The EA has not yet commenced its ‘communication period’ so any maintenance withdrawal is at least two and a half years away.

The EA has decided to proceed with the construction of the large flood storage reservoir at Shonks Mill. However there is a funding shortfall for this project and the EA has indicated that the Shonks Mill reservoir is a 10 year project with that time scale necessary in order to secure funding. Therefore no construction will commence within the next 10 years.

As the third proposals for managing surface water are outside of our district in Redbridge, officers are not familiar with the timescales for implementation of those proposals.

When the ‘post-adoption statement’ is released by the EA and more details are known, a further update will be presented to this panel.

The Panel noted the written update on the River Roding Flood Management Strategy.  The strategy was not yet in place and therefore the full implications were not yet known.

It was noted that the Environmental Agency (EA) had formally signed off on the proposals for withdrawing maintenance, constructing a large flood storage area at Shonks Mill and managing surface water in Redbridge.

The EA was also drafting a ‘post adoption statement’ which would explain the processes to put their proposals in place. This would give the Council a better indication of the timescales involved.

The Panel noted that the EA must follow a formal protocol when it withdraws maintenance and undertake a six month ‘communication period’. As the EA had not yet commenced this period it would be that any maintenance withdrawal was at least two and a half years away.

When a ‘post adoption statement’ was released by the EA and more details were known, a further update would be presented.

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

The Panel took agenda items 7 (Community Safety Partnership Strategic Assessment) and item 8 (Review of Community Safety Partnership Scrutiny) together as they were interlinked.

The Strategic Assessment was produced by the Community Safety Partnership (CSP)  every year, setting out the priorities for the forthcoming year.

The Partnerships key priorities for 2013/14 were:

(1)               Domestic Abuse;

(2)               Theft from Motor Vehicles;

(3)               Anti-Social Behaviour; and

(4)               Burglary Dwellings (including attempts).

The Partnership Plan included their key priorities and how they were going to achieve them.

It was noted that for future years it was the officers intention to join these two reports together into one report.

Councillor Spencer asked about the Strategic Intelligence Assessment. It mentioned both Buckhurst Hill and Buckhurst Hill West, why was that. He was told that it depended on how the database was searched, the areas were defined by the Police System.

Councillor Girling asked what the PCC budget allocation for this year would be for the CSP. He was told that we would get the same as last year. We also had to bid for this £21,800 and appear to have been successful. We would also be bidding for extra funds later on in the year. It should be noted that we have got all the money that we had bid for and that not all authorities achieved that.

Councillor Smith said it was helpful to hear that funding was in place. She would like to know how strong the membership of the Community Safety Partnership was and  would it be at risk if it could not fulfil all its obligations. She was told that the key part of the partnership  was between the Council and the police force. The Fire Brigade  had moved further away from the partnership, the probation and public health authorities attend some meetings but other services did not. They have been reminded that they need to turn up at the partnership meetings as they were needed to make the partnership stronger. Councillor Waller agreed it would be helpful for the Panel to convey their concerns about this. Councillor Lea asked that the officers relay the Panel’s concerns about attendance at the Partnership meetings.

Councillor Smith added that it would be better to have the partners input into the new joint report for next year.

Councillor Mohindra noted that the Home Office Community Safety Fund had dropped dramatically over the last five years, from £151,697 in 2008-09 to £10,000 in 2012-13. Were we getting funding from other areas? Caroline Wiggins, the Communities Safety Manager, said that it was getting harder to find funding at present. They were chasing funding but had not been very successful. Mr Gilbert added that they were building strong working relationships with the PCC from where we would get some of our future funding. Councillor Stallan said that the priorities were in line with the other CSPs in the County. Was there funding for the priorities for the coming year? Mrs Wiggins said that they had received  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

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

Members received a report on Highways Statistics from the County Highways department. As Essex Highways operated on a pan-Essex basis, rather than prioritising one particular district. Their priorities for Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) in Essex were:

(a)               Powered 2 wheeled;

(b)               Young car drivers; and

(c)               Pedestrians

which accounted for 20%, 18% and 15% respectively of the 630 KSI recorded in Essex in 2011.

In respect of this District, there were 83 KSI in 2011, comprised of:

(a)               17 powered 2 wheeled (20%);

(b)               10 young car drivers (12%); and

(c)               15 pedestrians (18%)

Members wondered why the priorities excluded cyclists.

Officers noted that there was not as much data in the report as they would have liked and would hopefully have better statistics in future reports. Councillor Girling noted that they have been asking for this for some time and were disappointed at the level of detail. They would like to see ‘hot spot maps’ on where the accident happened and what subsequent action had been taken.

Councillor Smith noted that we now have a Highways Panel and that sat behind any requests from Members. She was not sure what was to be done with the information contained in this report. Would it go to the Highways Panel? Mr Gilbert replied that County used the figures, but they were outside the remit of the Highways Panel. However, it was EFDC that needed more detailed information. He could ask County to explain how they do their assessments and maybe ask them here to explain how they work. This was agreed by the Panel.

            RESOLVED:

1.                  That the Highways Accident Statistics provided by Essex Highways be noted; and

2.                  That the relevant county officers be invited to a Panel meeting to explain how they compile their accident figures.

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

The Panel received a report updating them on the work of the Environmental co-ordinator. They noted that:

• The Green Corporate Working Party had instigated a review of the Council’s commercial waste disposal arrangements and it was found that all waste from the Civic Offices’ compactor was sent to landfill;
• A temporary contract had been entered into with SITA for the recycling of the Civic Offices commercial waste;
• A trial for food waste was to begin by the end of March 2013 in certain council offices;
• An initial draft of the corporate carbon reduction strategy was completed some time ago, but this has not been officially adopted as yet because of new requirements for local authorities that may be included; and
• Measuring and reporting the Council’s greenhouse gas emissions under the government requirement was ongoing and the deadline for publishing the 2012-2013 report was the end of June 2013.

Members of the Panel asked that in future a member form the relevant department should be in attendance to answer any questions raised by this type of report.

            RESOLVED:

1.                  That the report of the Environmental Co-ordinator be noted; and

2.                  That a member of the relevant department should be in attendance for future reports to answer any questions raised.

To note the GCWP minutes dated 3 December 2012.

The Panel noted the minutes of the EFDC Green Corporate Working Party for 3 December 2012. They again asked that a relevant officer should be in attendance to answer any questions that may arise on green waste.

To note the minutes of the IAA Member Working Group dated 29 November 2012.

The Panel noted the minutes of the Inter Authority Agreement Member Working Group held on 29 November 2012. Members noted that:

• A transfer station was to be constructed in Harlow. This would be important for us and our new waste contract and should generate some cost savings as all our waste would go to the new transfer station and would not have to be taken many miles away to the landfill sites, thus saving on the wear and tear on waste disposal trucks;
• The Commercial Waste Policy update which was pressing for the council to offer a trade waste collection service. This had always been difficult for us to do as we contract out our service and may end up completing against our service providers. We will be talking to our contractors about this when the new contract came into force.

Asked if we would have to pay for the use of the transfer station Mr Gilbert said that we would not. The transfer station would be opened in a year’s time.

Councillor Brady asked if the business rates covered waste collection and was told that it did not. At the end of the day it was a commercial decision and at present the waste recycling business was at a low ebb.

To note the minutes of the NEPP Joint Committee for on-street parking – 4 October 2012.

The Panel noted the minutes of the North Essex Parking Partnership Joint Committee for On-Street Parking for 4 October 2012.

Noted that Councillor Waller would be attending another meeting of this parking partnership on 10 April when he would be proposing a further 9 parking schemes. They had also agreed to a CCTV vehicle to tackle problems of parking and safety at various sites, it would prioritise schools. They were presently going through the procurement exercise for the vehicle.  He was happy for members to let him know of any problem areas.

Councillor Smith noted that the accounts for 11/12 was approved at the October meeting. Did we still continue to get a good deal out of the partnership. Councillor Waller replied that they had been concerned about North Essex Parking Partnership’s (NEPP) performance in terms of the issue of Penalty Charge Notices in Epping Forest as the number had fallen very substantially in recent months. NEPP Civil Enforcement Officers were spending too much of their time travelling to and from their base in Latton Bush, Harlow. An officer group had been set up to advise on the situation, which was now starting to improve. It had not been resources properly from the outset and had failed to generate as much income as anticipated. It was noted that joining NEPP had generated significant savings, so even if we had to contribute to NEPP that financial benefit would still exist.

Councillor Smith asked if we had an officer acting in an advisory role monitoring this work. She was told that we had two officers who did this and looked after our car parks and street furniture.

Councillor Girling asked if there was a summary of the NEPP meeting that could be had with any relevant statistics. He was told that the agenda for the March meetings would have that information in. Mr Gilbert added that we could ask our finance officers to review the income stream that was provided.

To note the Waste Management Partnership Board Minutes for 5 November 2012, 7 January 2013 and March 2013.

The Panel noted the Waste Management Partnership Board Minutes for 5 November 2012, 7 January and 4 March 2013.

To note the minutes of the Local Highways Panel meeting held on 28 January 2013.

The Panel noted the minutes of the ECC/EFDC Local Highways Panel Minutes for 28 January 2013. They noted that there were no time frames for the actions to be carried out in. They were informed that the Highways Panel had just been allocating jobs at their recent meetings. Councillor Girling noted that there would have to be two cost elements in the work to be done. One would be for the feasibility costs and then one for the actual cost of the works.

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

It should be reported to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee that the Panel had asked for its Terms of Reference to be altered to enable it to consider the minutes of the Police and Crime Panel.