Council Procedure Rule 10.6 provides for questions by any member of the Council to the Leader, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee or any Portfolio Holder, without notice on:
(i) reports under item 5 above; or
(ii) any other matter of a non operational character in relation to the powers and duties of the Council or which affects all or part of the District or some or all of its inhabitants.
Council Procedure Rule 10.7 provides that answers to questions without notice may take the form of:
(a) direct oral answer from the Leader or, at the request of the Leader, from another member of the Cabinet;
(b) direct oral answer from the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee or, at their request, from another member dealing with that issue as part of an Overview and Scrutiny review;
(c) where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication;
(d) where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to the questioner; or
(e) where the question relates to an operational matter, the Leader, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee or a member of the Cabinet will request that a response be given direct to the questioner by the relevant Chief Officer.
In accordance with the Council Procedure Rule 10.8, a time limit of twenty minutes is set for questions. Any question not dealt with within the time available will receive a written reply. The Chairman may extend this period by up to a further 10 minutes to ensure that all political groups and independent members may have their questions answered.
Minutes:
(a) Performance Reward Grant Cutbacks
Councillor Murray referred to the written report of the Leisure and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder in relation to the announcement by Essex County Council that it would be withdrawing funding from a range of local projects for children and young people. He asked the Portfolio Holder if steps would be taken to minimise the effects of this withdrawal of funding.
Councillor Rolfe undertook to provide members with a full report as to how this decision would impact on various groups.
(b) Roding Valley Recreation Ground
Councillor Spencer asked the Legal and Estates Portfolio Holder if the District Council was still responsible for bylaws relating to the Recreation Ground in Buckhurst Hill and to the Roding Valley Meadows Nature Reserve and, if so, whether enforcement action could be taken as the notice boards displaying the bylaws had been removed.
Councillor Wagland stated that the bylaws had been made in 1981 by the District Council and were now out of date and not enforceable. She also confirmed that for the bylaws to be enforceable they needed to be displayed on site. Councillor Wagland advised that negotiations were still taking place with the Buckhurst Hill Parish Council about responsibility for the Recreation Ground and when these had been resolved it would be possible to put in place up to date bylaws which could be enforced by the Police and Council Officers. In relation to the Roding Valley Meadows Nature Reserve, Councillor Wagland stated that she believed the situation was the same as the Recreation Ground but she would need to check the position.
(c) Countrycare
Councillor Wixley paid tribute to the work undertaken by Paul Hewitt, Countrycare Manager who had recently resigned from the Council. He asked the Safer and Greener Portfolio Holder what plans she had for recruiting a new manager.
Councillor Smith stated that the vacancy would be dealt with in the normal way.
On behalf of the Council, the Chairman paid tribute to the work undertaken by Paul Hewitt.
(d) Parking Schemes
Councillor Leonard referred to the Parking Schemes in Epping and Buckhurst Hill which were currently under review and asked the Operational Planning and Transport Portfolio Holder if priority could be given to the Loughton Broadway Parking Scheme since there was not one already in place in that locality.
Councillor Stavrou advised that the Loughton Broadway Scheme could not be given greater priority and that it would be necessary to complete the reviews currently taking place before considering that area. She pointed out the difficulties which had been encountered with these schemes and stated that the County Council and the District Council were doing their best with the funds available.
(e) Langston Road Depot Development
Councillor Philip stated that at the recent Cabinet meeting, reference had been made to 86% of out of town spend being out of the District and he asked the Legal and Estates Portfolio Holder if she was able to provide more information about this statement.
Councillor Wagland stated that in the context of the Langston Road Depot site being used for purposes which would not compete with High Street shops she had made reference to a Retail Study prepared by Roger Tym and Partners. That study had shown that comparison goods spending patterns in the Epping Forest District had a very low retention level with approximately 86% going out of the District to over centres in particular Harlow, Romford, and Ilford. She advised that comparison goods were classed as clothes, furniture, carpets, DIY goods, electrical and sports. The amount of the retained spend was approximately £142 million and that lost amounted to approximately £847.3 million.
Councillor Wagland advised that food was not included and was classed as convenience shopping. The total spend on convenience shopping was approximately £569.3 million of which approximately £192 million (38%) was retained within the District and approximately £377 million (62%) was going out of the District.
Councillor Wagland advised that further statistics were available if required and emphasised that the aim for the Council should be to retain as much spend within the district as possible.
(f) Recycling
Councillor Johnson asked the Environment Portfolio Holder if she was confident that the current levels of recycling could be retained.
Councillor Sartin stated that the residents deserved credit for achieving a recycling figure of 61.53% during the first quarter of 2010/11. She advised that efforts would be made to retain that level but that during the current dry period there was less green waste being collected. However, despite this it was expected that the Council would achieve its target for recycling during the year.
(g) Proposed Reduction of Heating Charges – Ninefields, Waltham Abbey
Councillor Johnson referred to the proposal to reduce heating charges for Council owned blocks of flats on the Ninefields Estate and asked the Housing Portfolio Holder if he agreed that this was a matter of concern for the affected residents and if he supported the proposed reduction in heating charges.
Councillor Stallan thanked Councillor Wyatt for pursuing this matter on behalf of the residents and confirmed that his aim as Portfolio Holder was to provide residents with as cost-effective heating as possible.
(h) Cessation of Free Swimming for Over 60’s
Councillor Ms R Brookes asked the Leisure and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder if in the light of withdrawing free swimming for over 60’s he would investigate the possibility of introducing a season ticket or a loyalty scheme to encourage those users to continue to exercise as much as possible.
Councillor Rolfe agreed to pursue this matter with Council officers and Sports Leisure Management.