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) Parking Reviews
Councillor J M Whitehouse stated that he was pleased to hear there would be robust project management in relation to the reviews but questioned whether amendments to be made to proposals by the County Council and/or the District Council would be made before or after the fresh consultation exercise.
Councillor Stavrou stated that she was not sure at present of the order in which these matters would be undertaken. She emphasised that there would be a need for further consultation and that existing comments would also be taken into account.
(b) Enterprise Week
Councillor Mrs J H Whitehouse referred to the reference in the report of the Finance and Economic Development Portfolio Holder to activities being planned to celebrate Enterprise Week in mid November and asked for further details. She also asked what progress was being made in relation to the loyalty card initiative for the District’s Town Centres.
Councillor Whitbread advised that a number of events were being planned for Enterprise Week in conjunction with Harlow and Uttlesford Councils. He agreed to provide members with a full list in due course. In relation to the loyalty card initiative he advised that this was to be launched later in the month and was aimed in encouraging people to spend in the Epping Forest District rather than further afield. He praised the work undertaken by Cathy MacBride, Town Centres Officer, in relation to this scheme. Councillor Whitbread said that he would report further on this matter at the next Council meeting.
(c) Backlog of Assessments for Disabled Adaptations by County Occupational Therapy Service
Councillor P Brooks asked the Housing Portfolio Holder for an update on the restructuring of the County’s Occupational Therapy Service which was likely to lead to a reduced number of Occupational Therapists and backlogs of assessments for disabled adaptations.
Councillor Stallan, Housing Portfolio Holder stated that the proposals of the County Council could result in a decision to not undertake any assessments for disabled adaptations on behalf of District Councils. If such a decision was made it would be necessary for all the District Councils in the County to make alternative arrangements funded from their own resources. He stated that he would keep members informed of progress with this important and sensitive area.
(d) Local Enterprise Partnership
Councillor Pond questioned the authority for agreeing to be part of a Local Enterprise Partnership comprising Essex, Kent and East Sussex.
Councillor Collins, Leader of the Council stated that approximately one month ago the County Council encouraged by a local Member of Parliament had formulated proposals for a Local Enterprise Partnership with Kent. This proposal had been put forward as it had been suggested a Partnership based on only a county boundary would be unlikely to be accepted by Central Government. She advised that District Councils had been given very little notice to respond to this proposal and she had agreed that it should be pursued but nothing had been signed to that effect. At a very late stage East Sussex had been joined into the proposal but she had not been made aware of this until after the event. She stated that she had been surprised when the list of approved partnerships had been published as some had been agreed on the basis of county boundaries only.
(e) Fire Safety Risk Assessment in Blocks of Flats
Councillor Jenny Hart thanked the Housing Portfolio Holder for deferring action on the removal of carpets from communal areas and asked if he would agree to investigate the practicality of installing smoke alarms in every building, subject to the views of the Fire Service. She also stated that she understood one London Borough Council had agreed to the laying of flame resistant carpet in communal areas which was apparently acceptable to the London Fire Brigade.
Councillor Stallan, Housing Portfolio Holder advised that in relation to the provision of smoke alarms he had asked officers to undertake a feasibility study of installing mains operated alarms in properties and once the results of that study were available a report would be submitted to the Cabinet and possibly the full Council for approval for a supplementary estimate to provide any finance required. In relation to the flame resistant carpet he asked Councillor Hart if she would provide him with details so that he could pursue this matter with officers. Councillor Stallan stated that following consideration of these issues by the Housing Scrutiny Panel he had taken account of representations made by Councillor Hart and other Councillors. He had also taken account of statements made by Lord Young and the new Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on the need to reduce the cost of local government administration and inspection regimes. As a result he was proposing to write to the new Housing Minister for clarification of the current view. This was to be the subject of a Portfolio Holder decision which would be signed and published within the next two weeks although implementation would be the subject to call-in.
(f) Loughton High Road Town Centre Partnership
Councillor Markham pointed out that the District Council’s two representatives on this Partnership had not attended meetings and he asked the Leader of the Council if they were to be removed as representatives.
Councillor Collins replied that she had been unaware of this non-attendance until recently and had not yet had an opportunity to speak to the members concerned. She stated that she would be pursuing the matter with the relevant members.