Agenda and minutes

(Director of Governance)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

The Panel noted there were no substitute members.

(Director of Governance). 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 6^th January 2015.

The notes of the 6 January 2015 meeting were agreed as a correct record.

(Chairman / Lead Officer) The Overview and Scrutiny Committee has agreed the Terms of Reference of this Panel. This is attached along with a draft work programme. The Panel are asked at each meeting to review both documents.

The Panel’s Terms of Reference and Work Programme were noted.

With the permission of the Chairman, item 7 on the agenda, ‘PICK form on air pollution’ was taken next.

In October 2014 the main O&S Committee had asked this Panel to consider a PICK form submitted by Councillor Neville on air pollution in our district. A report on this is attached.

The Assistant Director Neighbourhood Services, Mr Nolan, introduced the report that was in reply to Councillor’s Neville’s PICK form querying the amount of air pollution in our district and in particular the levels of particulate pollution in Epping Forest, attributable to 6% of all deaths.

Councillor Neville asked how many sites was the background information was based on. Mr Nolan said that there were 40 sites in the district. Councillor Neville asked if the background information could be made public. He was told that it could.  Officers carried out an assessment every 3 to 4 years based on PM₁₀ particulates.

Councillor Neville then asked what was the worst area in our district. Mr Nolan said that they had only one at present and that was at Bull Common, where they had two houses very close to the road. The only remedy to this would be to either move the road or the houses, neither of which were practical.

Councillor Neville asked what was being done to encourage the public out of their cars in our area. The general consensus was that as this was a rural area with sporadic public transport, cars were indispensable.

Councillor Surtees raised concerns about diesel vehicles being the main source of particulate pollution, especially when they were left idling for a long time. Mr Nolan confirmed that officers did not get notified of such occurrences.

Councillor Waller said that it was a good thing that they were looking at this issue and they owed Councillor Neville a debt of gratitude in bringing this to our attention.  Research showed that particulate pollution reduced life expectancy by two years and could also be the cause of serious illnesses. He noted that London Boroughs  were better than the worst in Essex. The current Mayor of London had an objective to achieve an ultra low emissions zone in London. However our power to influence this issue was very limited because of the motorways and commuters going in and out of London.

Councillor Breare-Hall commented that the situation at Bell Common was widely recognised, and asked if any progress been made on this study. Mr Nolan noted that information had been given to the county. It may be possible for the junction to be redesigned and help the situation.

Councillor Webster noted that one of the biggest problems was getting the Corporation of London to help us.

Councillor Harding said that it would be better if the Council fleet of vans were petrol and not diesel powered. Also there was a need for a safer set up for cyclists in our area, the rural roads were just too dangerous.  Councillor Neville noted that ‘Sustrans’ the transport charity were looking into this at present in the Epping area.

To receive a presentation from the Engineering, Drainage and Water Team on their work in regard to flood risk matters.

The Council’s Drainage Manager, Susan Stranders, gave a presentation (copy attached) on the Council’s role in alleviating the risk of flooding in the district and what the Engineering, Drainage and Water Team (EDWT) did. She was accompanied by Mr  Baccarini, the Land and Water Quality Officer.

Ms Stranders handed out a statement from our planners which outlined the role of planning in flood risk prevention. It was noted that Local Plans should be supported by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and polices to manage flood risk from all sources. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) set strict tests to protect people and property from flooding, which all local planning authorities were expected to follow. Where these tests were not met, national policy was clear that new development should not be allowed.

In terms of day-to-day development management planners assessed applications using mapping data made available by the Environment Agency. In addition recent guidelines issued by government requires all local authorities to consult with their Lead Local Flooding Authority; in our case it was Essex County Council, on development of 10 dwellings or more, to assess flood risk from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses and to promote sustainable drainage proposals.

Ms Stranders noted that EDWT provided a discretionary 24/7 – 365 emergency flood response standby service to deal with out of hours flooding incidents involving Council owned assets or to assist members of the public, where appropriate. They would respond to all types of flooding incidents, working closely with the Environment Agency where necessary.

It was noted that there were three flood alleviation schemes (FAS) in the district that were the responsibility of the Council, they were:

1.    Thornwood Brook;

2.    Church Lane; and

3.    Thornhill, North Weald (North and South)

·         These were built in high risk areas, with properties at risk of flooding;

·         The levels of water in the storage areas at Thornwood and Thornhill were monitored 24/7, 365 by telemetry and recently installed CCTV;

·         In addition there was the Loughton Brook Scheme, which was statutorily classified as a Reservoir and was managed by the Environment Agency.

In addition to the FAS the EDWT monitor and maintain (with the Council’s Term Contractor – Hugh Pearl Ltd) the council’s 50 storm grilles and approximately 2,500km of ordinary water courses.

It was also noted that:

·         We are the only District in Essex with its own Byelaws on Land Drainage;

·         As an authority we liaise with Thames Water, Essex County Council (Highways), Affinity Water, Environment Agency (& other organisations);

·         Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Council was statutorily obliged to inspect and assess potentially contaminated land sites within its boundary;

·         Local Authorities must set out its approach as a written strategy;

·         There were thought to be several thousand potentially contaminated land sites, due to historic contamination, with 91 landfill sites;

·         Local Authorities also had a statutory duty under the Building Act 1984 and the Public health Acts to ensure buildings have adequate drainage and that blockages, defects and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

To consider the attached report.

The Panel considered the quarter 3 performance of the Key Performance Indicators for 2014/15 relevant to the council services that the panel monitors.

The Panel noted that the position for the end of December 2014 was:

i)              26 (72%) of indicators had achieved the cumulative third quarter target;

ii)             10 (27%) of indicators did not achieve the cumulative third quarter target, although 1 (3%) of these KPIs performed within agreed tolerance for the indicator; and

iii)            29 (81%) of indicators were currently anticipated to achieve the cumulative year-end target.

Nine of the KPI fell within the Safer Cleaner Greener Scrutiny Panel area of responsibility, and their position at the end of December 2014 was:

i)              7 (78%) of indicators achieved the cumulative third quarter target;

ii)             2 (22%) of indicators did not achieve the cumulative third quarter target;

iii)            8 (89%) were currently anticipated to achieve the cumulative year-end target.

Councillor Sartin asked about the indicator on litter (NEI 002), was this down just because of the change over? Mr Durrani said that they did not know for sure, it could just be a general increase in litter; but they were also examining the contractors.

Councillor Lea asked about recycling of household waste (NEI 002) would this mean more landfill? Mr Durrani said it did not mean that. But there was some recyclable materials going into the residual bins. Overall the waste was dropping, but it was not happening as much as we would like. We were trying to educate the public again.

Councillor Jennings asked how we compared with our neighbouring authorities. Councillor Lea said that we were one of the better ones and Mr Durrani added that they may not have the same KPIs as we did and could only look at similar indicators. We are, however in the top 10 nationally and second in Essex.

Councillor Harding commented that recycling figures should go up in the summer months because of garden waste, but the graph and figures seemed very level. Mr Durrani noted that they were percentage figures. There were peaks and troughs, and the figures were quarterly so this tended to level out the figures.

Councillor Neville asked about litter build up on disputed land (e.g. Highways or Housing land). He was told that contractually we would clear land belonging to us and Highways. But for privately owned land we do not have the authority and this would be where enforcement came in.

RESOLVED:

That the quarter 3 performance of the Key Performance Indicators for 2014/15 were noted.

To consider the attached report.

The Panel noted that as part of a duty to secure continuous improvement, a range of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) relevant to the Council’s service priorities and key objectives are adopted each year. The KPIs provide an opportunity for the Council to focus attention on how specific areas for improvement would be addressed. A number of KPIs would be used as performance measures for the Council’s key objectives each year.

Although some revisions to existing KPIs were proposed for 2015/16, it was not intended that significant changes be made to the indicator set for the next year, as the current suite of measures was considered appropriate for the ongoing evaluation of relevant performance factors.Service directors had identified provisional targets for each indicator with the relevant portfolio holder(s), based on third-quarter performance (and the estimated outturn position) for the current year.

The review of KPIs which fall within the areas of responsibility of the Safer, Cleaner, Greener Scrutiny Panel resulted in no changes being made.

The Panel considered the proposed KPIs for the new year and made the following comments:

·         The target for recycling had remained at 60% for some years, should an increase in this target be considered? They noted that the district as whole was recycling more but people were becoming more relaxed about this and needed to be re-educated. No increase in this target was felt to be needed for the coming year.

·         The overall targets had been met, due largely to the management of the Council and its staff.

·         On consideration the Panel were content with the proposed KPIs.

RESOLVED:

That the proposed Key Performance Indicators and targets covering the remit of the Safer Cleaner Greener Scrutiny Panel for 2015/16 be agreed.

To note the remaining date for this Panel:  28 April 2015.

The upcoming meeting of the Panel was noted.