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 6 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) Heritage Assets Review – Buckhurst Hill
Councillor Watson suggested that Buckhurst Hill was possibly the only part of the District with no designated Conservation Area. She advised that many local residents wanted such an area established in order to protect the unique character of Buckhurst Hill. She sought an assurance from the Planning and Technology Portfolio Holder that he would assist Buckhurst Hill to ensure that they were not at a disadvantage in relation to the Heritage Assets Review which would form part of the Evidence Base for the Local Plan.
Councillor Philip, Planning and Technology Portfolio Holder advised that the Council had appointed consultants to undertake a review of Conservation Areas and heritage assets including possible boundary changes and the inclusion or removal of assets from the local list. He stated that the consultants would engage with local community groups and parish councils to ensure that their views were taken into account. He emphasised that this would be part of the Evidence Base for the Local Plan and the consultants would be required therefore to produce a technical report based on fact which could be defensible. Accordingly, the Council would not dictate to the consultants what should be included in the report but would be seeking their views. The Portfolio Holder advised however that it would be useful if Buckhurst Hill Parish Council and other local councils could compile information which they considered justified the designation of an area and provide that to the consultants. As all local councils would be treated in a similar fashion the Portfolio Holder gave an assurance that Buckhurst Hill would not be at a disadvantage.
(b) Recycling Centres
Councillor Spencer asked the Environment Portfolio Holder if he would approach the London Borough of Redbridge and Hertfordshire County Council regarding the use of their recycling centres by Epping Forest residents on Wednesdays when the recycling centres at Chigwell and Waltham Abbey would be closed.
Councillor Knapman, Environment Portfolio Holder explained the reason for the reduction in hours at the local recycling centres and pointed out that there were problems in trying to negotiate arrangements for recycling in a London Borough or another County. He stated that officers were looking at other ways of increasing the options available.
(c) Essex Police Plan
Councillor Murray asked the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder if she shared his concern and that of many residents that the four year plan of Essex Police to cut uniformed officers by approximately 400 would result in less police on the frontline. He also asked the Portfolio Holder if there was any guarantee that the new senior police officer for the area would stay longer than any of his predecessors.
Councillor Smith, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder reported that she understood from the Police that the new arrangements were working very well. She stated that the four year plan had been reported to members and there had been a presentation to the Scrutiny Panel which had gone into great detail in relation to the proposals. Councillor Smith stated that the aim of the Police was to deliver a better service focussed on neighbourhood policing and at present she thought that this aim would be met. Councillor Smith advised that whilst she did not know how long the new Senior Police Officer would be in post. She advised that he had to date engaged very well with the Safer Communities Partnership and was expected to continue to do so in the future.
(d) External Funding – Special Inclusion Project for Disabled Children and Young People
Councillor Richardson drew attention to the report of the Leisure and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder which stated that there was potential for the Council to secure a further £38,000 for a special inclusion project subject to success in the first two years. She suggested that such funding was needed on a permanent basis and asked the Portfolio Holder if she shared those views.
Councillor Gadsby, Leisure and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder stated that she hoped funding could be secured for the continuation of the project.
(e) External Funding – Wellbeing Project for Older People
Councillor Brookes asked the Leisure and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder if she could give details of the Wellbeing Project for Older People which had attracted funding in excess of £70,000.
Councillor Gadsby stated that she would respond to Councillor Brookes in writing.
(f) Olympic Games – London Underground Services
Councillor Watson asked the Leisure and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder for details of the steps being taken to address the concerns of many local residents about the adequacy of London Underground services during the period of the Olympic Games.
Councillor Gadsby, Leisure and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder advised that Transport for London had announced that there were no plans for changing services except for providing some additional trains in the late evening/early morning. She pointed out that the Council had been advised that the Central Line was already operating to full capacity and that the number of commuter passengers during the Olympic Games was expected to be reduced as the Games coincided with school holidays. She stated that the position was under constant review by the various responsible authorities.
(g) Olympic Games – Central Line
Councillor Murray asked the Leader of the Council what steps were being taken to ensure that local residents who used the Central Line for commuting would be able to continue to use that service as required during the period of the Olympic Games.
Councillor Wagland, Leader of the Council advised that this was a matter outside of the control of the Council but that strong representations had been made to the relevant authorities at every opportunity. She advised that data had recently been released which showed that some 10% of tickets for the mountain bike activity in Essex had been allocated to local people within walking distance of the venue. She also stated that statistics would be available shortly indicating that a large number of people who normally used the Central Line would not be doing so during the duration of the Olympic Games as they had chosen to spend the time elsewhere. She also drew attention to incentives being offered to commuters to stagger their working hours during the duration of the games. Councillor Wagland confirmed that she would continue to make representations about these concerns whenever the opportunity arose.
(h) Traffic Regulation Orders
Councillor J H Whitehouse drew attention to the current Government consultation on making changes to the Traffic Regulation Order process and asked the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder if she would make this consultation exercise known to all members of the Council so that they could respond as individuals and if she would respond on behalf of the Council suggesting alternative means of publishing the making of such orders.
Councillor Smith, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder said that the North Essex Parking Partnership would be making a response to the Home Office in relation to the consultation paper and added that she would arrange for details of the consultation document to be published in the Council Bulletin. She also stated that she would discuss the possibility of a response on behalf of the Council with the appropriate Scrutiny Panel Chairman.
(i) Fire Safety in Flat Blocks
Councillor Jennie Hart asked the Housing Portfolio Holder what measures would be taken to ensure that concrete stairs in flat blocks were slip resistant if the proposal to remove carpets from such stairs was implemented.
Councillor McEwen, Housing Portfolio Holder stated that no special measures were currently being considered as there was little evidence to suggest that concrete stairs without carpets would be a hazard. She agreed that the matter could be considered in the future if necessary.
(j) Borders Lane, Loughton - Footpath
Councillor Leonard stated that a long-established footpath between Borders Lane and Loughton Hall had recently been closed. He asked the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder if the correct procedures had been undertaken to secure this closure.
Councillor Smith, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder stated that Essex County Council Highways were aware of this issue and were investigating the matter.
(k) Council Tenants – Tree Planting
Councillor Stallan asked the Housing Portfolio Holder if she agreed with the suggestion of one member that tenants wishing to plant a tree in their garden should first seek the consent of the Council or whether she felt such an issue was best dealt with by inclusion of advice within the Tenants’ Handbook.
Councillor McEwen, Housing Portfolio Holder said that she was surprised at the suggestion about seeking consent as there was a desire to minimise regulation where possible.
(l) St John’s Road, Epping Development – Consultation Exercise
Councillor Whitbread sought an assurance from the Finance and Economic Development Portfolio Holder that any option which did not receive the support of the majorityof respondents to the consultation exercise would not be pursued.
Councillor Mohindra, Finance and Economic Development Portfolio Holder stated that he could not give such an assurance. He pointed out that the District Council was a minority land owner and there would be a need to take account of the views of the other parties involved. He said he looked forward to considering the results of the consultation exercise.
(m) Traffic Sign – A414
Councillor Grigg asked the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder if she would take steps to secure the reinstatement of the Epping Forest boundary sign on the A414 coming out of Harlow. She stated that the sign had been removed whilst road widening works had been undertaken but these had been completed for many months.
Councillor Smith, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder stated that she would give the matter her urgent attention.
(n) St John’s Road, Epping Development – New Homes Bonus
Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor J M Whitehouse declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of being a resident of St John’s Road, Epping. The Councillor advised that he had determined that his interest was not prejudicial and that he would remain in the meeting and ask a question.
Councillor J M Whitehouse pointed out that provision had been made in the Council’s District Development Fund for New Homes Bonus and bearing this in mind he asked the Finance and Economic Development Portfolio Holder and the Planning and Technology Portfolio Holder if they agreed that this could be a potential source of funding if the Council decided to invest in community or leisure facilities as part of the St John’s Road development.
Councillor Mohindra, Finance and Economic Development Portfolio Holder advised that provision had been made in the District Development Fund rather than the Continuing Services Budget due to uncertainty about the longer term Central Government funding arrangements. He said that he did not have a monopoly on good ideas for development of the area and he encouraged everyone to respond to the consultation exercise.
Councillor Philip, Planning and Technology Portfolio Holder pointed out that when the Local Plan was in place there would also be the possibility of funding infrastructure by means of Community Infrastructure Tariffs as well as New Homes Bonus.
(o) Council’s Nursery Service
Councillor Pond asked the Environment Portfolio Holder when he expected to submit a report on the future of the Council’s Nursery Service.
Councillor Knapman, Environment Portfolio Holder stated that the matter was being considered and a report would be submitted in due course.