Agenda item

To answer questions asked after notice in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraph 10.3 of the Council Procedure Rules of the Constitution on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties or which affects the District:

 

(a)               to the Chairman of the Council;

 

(b)               to the Leader of the Council;

 

(c)               to the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee or

 

(d)               to any Member of the Cabinet;.

 

Council Procedure rule 10.4 provides that answers to questions under notice may take the form of:

 

(a)       direct oral answer;

(b)       where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication; or

(c)       where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to the questioner.

 

Answers to questions falling within (a) and (b) above will be made available to the member asking the question one hour before the meeting. Answers to questions falling within (c) above will be circulated to all councillors.

 

Questions, if any, will follow if not received in time to be incorporated into the agenda.

(a)        Pyrles Lane Nursery, Loughton

 

By Councillor Angold-Stephens to Councillor Breare-Hall, Environment Portfolio Holder

 

“As a consequence of the application for outline planning permission to build houses on the Pyrles Lane Nursery site, Loughton, it is proposed to move the plant nursery to a much smaller site -

 

(a) .Does Councillor Breare – Hall agree that downsizing the nursery so that the skilled horticultural staff are no longer able to grow their own plants to enhance the district, is a retrogressive step, and that even if a cost saving can be demonstrated, it is not  environmentally sound  to only use expensive imported plants; and

 

(b) Small plants bought in to grow on, also eventually need space, so does he further agree that in the current climate of self-sufficiency and sustainability, the Council should be seeking an adequate site to grow its own plants thereby setting a good example of Localism at work in the district?” 

 

Response of Councillor Breare-Hall, Environment Portfolio Holder

 

“Should it be necessary to relocate the site of the Nursery, the Council's skilled horticultural staff will continue to produce plants that enhance the District. Any plants that are bought in will be sourced in the UK, not overseas, and will be provided against a detailed specification drawn up to guarantee the type, quality and quantity of plant stock required. That this can be achieved whilst also saving in the order of £45,000 per annum is progressive, not retrogressive. 

 

The points made in (a) and (b) were explored in some detail at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on the 17^th of July, when the call-in on the Asset Management Portfolio Holder’s decision (AMED/002/2012-13) to make an outline planning application for housing development on the location of the Pyrles Lane Nursery was considered.  Having heard the views of the call-in proponents and the response of the Portfolio Holder, Overview and Scrutiny Committee resolved that the original Portfolio Holder decision should remain, without amendment.   

 

The Council is having to take a strategic view of its depot holdings and requirements as part of its reviews of landholdings, future housing requirements and financial situation.  Should the result of this be that the nursery service is required to relocate I am confident it will be able to maintain its current excellent service”.

 

Supplementary Question by Councillor Angold-Stephens

 

Councillor Angold-Stephens asked the Portfolio Holder if he had taken into account the capital cost of relocating the nursery including the cost of putting the alternative site in Oakwood Hill into an acceptable condition.

 

Response of Councillor Breare-Hall, Environment Portfolio Holder

 

Councillor Breare-Hall stated that he had not considered those matters.

 

 

 

 

 

(b)       Loughton High Road

 

By Councillor Mann to Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder

 

“(a)   What pressure if any, is being put on the County Council to rejuvenate Loughton High Road, which is now beginning to look in quite a bad state of repair, many broken pavers that have become trip hazards, many displaced kerb stones, several places where pavers have been lifted and replaced with tarmac that has sunk and have also become trip hazards, chewing gum or similar that have become in- grained; and

 

(b)    What is the annual maintenance budget for Loughton High Road both for EFDC and ECC responsibilities?”

 

Response of Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder

 

“(a)      The maintenance of the public highway lies with Essex County Council as the Highways Authority.  Therefore, whilst I and indeed any other Member of Council can make the County Council aware of highway defects, using the County’s points of contact, the ultimate decision rests with them in respect of the priority accorded to a particular location.  I can therefore only suggest that the Member and other Loughton Members use those points of contact, and if they are of the view that the response received is inadequate, that they seek the assistance and support of their County Council Member.

 

(b)        This Council does not make any budgetary provision for highway maintenance.  This Council does of course fund the district street cleansing service and also budgets for the maintenance of street furniture such as seats, street name plates and litter bins.  Street cleansing costs in the order of £1.5 million per annum and street furniture etc. in the order of £55,000 per annum.  However, it is not possible to disaggregate these budgets to establish costs for any given location.  There is no specific budget allocation for the removal of chewing gum from paved surfaces, which is an expensive exercise normally involving the use of specialist contractors.   However, officers are investigating whether there are cost effective and as this is a matter for the Environment Portfolio Holder I understand that Councillor Breare-Hall will be reporting to Members in due course”.

 

Supplementary Question by Councillor Mann

 

You stated that approximately £55,000 per annum was spent on street furniture, can you advise what proportion of that sum was spent in relation to Loughton High Road.

 

Response of Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio

 

As advised in my answer to your original question it is not possible to disaggregate the budget to establish costs for any given location.

 

(c)        Town Centre Partnerships

 

By Councillor Angold-Stephens to Councillor Grigg, Asset Management and Economic Development Portfolio Holder

 

“(a) Can the Asset Management and Economic Development Portfolio Holder explain why the Council failed to provide its normal grants in time for the events planned by the various TCP’s in 2011, the result of which was that the chairmen had to subsidise the events out of their own pocket for several months and, in the case of Debden, the summer Debden Day event had to be cancelled?  The absence of the appropriate officer should have been no excuse as their duties should have been delegated to another officer during their absence.  Fortunately TCP funding did come through in time this year; and

 

(b) Can the Portfolio Holder assure members and the TCP’s that the problems that occurred in 2011 will not happen in future?”

 

Response of Councillor Grigg, Asset Management and Economic Development Portfolio Holder

 

“Firstly I was not responsible for this Portfolio during 2011. 

 

However, I have instigated a discussion with the Chairmen of the Partnerships, as such a meeting did not take place in the last year; this took place on 25 September this week.

 

I understand that some important decisions were taken in 2011 which reduced both budgets and staff available to support these functions, and that budgetary pressures to save or reduce budgets when there are underspends were important. Remaining staff simply do not have the capacity to provide the same level of service that we were once providing.

 

The meeting explained to the Chairs that there is thus budget to support the administration of the Town Centre Partnerships, but there is no longer an ongoing budget to support Special projects.  We are trying to honour the outstanding requests which were or have been made, including those which were not fully signed off because the requisite meeting of the Chairs had not taken place.

 

As a result of the meeting consideration is being given to future working arrangements with the Partnerships.

 

If a special projects fund was to be re-instated it would require a decision of Council to approve a CSB budget of £6,000 as a growth item”.

 

Supplementary Question by Councillor Angold-Stephens

 

Can you give an assurance that future payments will be made in a timely manner and in view of the need to maintain vibrancy in town centres are you willing to look again at re-instating a special projects fund.

 

Response of Councillor Grigg, Asset Management and Economic Development Portfolio Holder

 

As I have already explained there is currently only budget provision to support the administration of town centre partnerships and the issue of payments for special projects does not arise.

 

I am supportive of town centre partnerships and recognise their value.  I am examining other ways of working with town centre partnerships and, if necessary, I will do my best to ensure that there is adequate budget provision made to support working with them.

 

(d)       Loughton Broadway Parking Review

 

By Councillor Girling to Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder

“My apologies but as a newly appointed ward Councillor for Loughton Broadway with some significant transport experience I would appreciate your answers to the following:

 

The footfall of commuters using Epping, Debden (Loughton Broadway) and Buckhurst Hill London Underground stations are:

 

	TfL LU Performance updates 2003-2011
	2008	2009	2010	2011	Population	Schools	Net cost £
Buckhurst Hill	1.600m	1.722m	1.790m	1.850m	10,738	3 pr & 0 Sec	610,006
Epping	2.480m	2.780m	2.860m	3.100m	11,047	5 pr & 1 Sec	624,650
Loughton Broadway	1.760m	1.896m	2.020m	2.120m	13,445	3 Pr & 2 Sec	244,300
						Total	1,478,956

 

If the figures for Loughton Station are added the commuter footfall for Loughton and Debden is at least as much as Epping and Buckhurst Hill together.

 

Epping and Buckhurst Hill have now had the luxury of 2 parking reviews whilst Debden which has the most schools in one ward/area has been budgeted with less expenditure than both schemes and the Loughton review was scrapped altogether although, taken together with Debden, it is the part of the District with the highest demand for commuter parking. These schemes have been in the pipeline since 2004/5.

 

The new local plan focuses on areas where there is high population to propose new development, but planning Highways schemes, improvements and repairs are not prioritized in the same way. Surely, high population leads to high car use and therefore more pressure on the highway?

 

It seems ludicrous that Loughton Broadway has been singled out for significant housing and retail expansion (Langston Road and The Broadway Development) compared with Buckhurst Hill and yet we are third in line to receive a parking review.

 

According to the ‘Parking Reviews in Epping, Buckhurst Hill and Loughton Broadway’ report to Cabinet on 25^th October 2010 £922,956 (page 26) was spent on these three reviews in 2010.

 

(a) Can the Portfolio Holder confirm that after spending in access of £75k of tax payers’ money (Oct 2010 figure) on drafting the Loughton Broadway Parking Review, the scheme will continue, with an agreed timeline for implementation; and

 

(b) Has the Portfolio Holder considered any other way of expediting the Loughton Broadway  parking review bearing in mind the Highways stated manpower limitations?”

 

Response of Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder

 

“(1)      At the time of the Cabinet meeting on 20 October 2010, there was a remaining budget of £520,000.  Since that time work has continued on the Epping review and at the conclusion of that review it is estimated that the budget remaining will be in the order of £370,000.  The Buckhurst Hill and Broadway reviews will have to be undertaken within that remaining budget.  Until such time as the scope of the review is confirmed, I am unable to state unequivocally what resources will be available to undertake a review at The Broadway.  Once the position with Buckhurst Hill is clear I will be able to provide the Member with information on how we might proceed at The Broadway.

 

(2)        As I have indicated above, until such time as the scope Buckhurst Hill review is known, I will be unable to consider how best to proceed with the review at The Broadway.  I can however assure the Member that if the financial circumstances allow me to commence the Broadway review earlier, I will do so”.

 

Supplementary Question by Councillor Girling

 

Can you guarantee that some budget provision will be kept in reserve in order to undertake the Loughton Broadway Review.

 

Response of Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder

 

A large proportion of the costs are attributable to advertising proposals in accordance with statutory requirements.  It is my understanding that these requirements are being simplified and that the costs of advertising in future will be less.  Taking this into account and bearing in mind that the Buckhurst Hill Review will be a targeted review I am determined to ensure that sufficient budget is left in order to undertake the Loughton Broadway Review.