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) Asbestos in Council Buildings
Councillor Markham asked the Leader what steps had been taken regarding the identification and removal of asbestos material from Council buildings in the light of a previous decision to inspect all buildings and produce a programme of works.
Councillor Whitbread acknowledged the very serious problem of asbestos material in buildings which in many cases did not come to light for many years. He thanked Councillor Markham for drawing attention to this matter and advised that he would place a detailed response in the Council Bulletin.
(b) Buckhurst Hill Parking Review
Councillor Spencer asked the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder for the current timetable in relation to the Buckhurst Hill Parking Review.
Councillor Waller advised that he had recently met representatives of Buckhurst Hill. He acknowledged that the parking review exercise undertaken in Epping had not been ideal and had not satisfied many of the local residents. Accordingly, different approaches were being explored in relation to the Buckhurst Hill Review. He emphasised that he wished local ward members to play a leading role in determining the consultation exercise with the aim of producing proposals which would generally meet with approval.
(c) Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation – Engagement Programme
Councillor Wagland referred to the range of activities arranged during the forthcoming Issues and Options engagement period and pointed out that there were no exhibitions or workshops proposed in the Chigwell, Grange Hill or Buckhurst Hill areas. She asked if local councils could request additional exhibitions and workshops and suggested that in view of the number of potential sites in Chigwell there ought at least to be some events held there.
Councillor Whitbread, in the absence of the Planning Portfolio Holder, stated that he had already asked officers to review the engagement programme and that he would now emphasise to them the need to include Chigwell within the exhibition and workshop programme.
(d) North Essex Parking Partnership – Emptying of Pay and Display Machines
Councillor McEwen asked the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder who would be responsible for emptying the pay and display machines in Council car parks when the Partnership took over responsibility for enforcement. She pointed out that failure to empty the machines on a regular basis had been a problem in the past in Ongar and asked if the Portfolio Holder expected the position to be improved once the Partnership took over responsibility.
Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder advised that he would provide a written response in the Council Bulletin after speaking to officers.
(e) North East Parking Partnership - Funding
Councillor Jacobs referred to the written report of the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder in which reference had been made to the Partnership within a relatively short period moving from requiring subsidy to a position of surplus. He asked how this had been achieved and questioned the method of apportioning the surplus between authorities.
Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder stated that any surplus would be used for the benefit of all of the authorities in the Partnership and he would provide a more detailed response in the Council Bulletin.
(f) Revenue Outturn
Councillor J M Whitehouse referred to the figures in the written report of the Finance and Technology Portfolio Holder which showed that an additional £547,000 had been added to reserves. He asked the Portfolio Holder whether in the light of this saving it was no longer necessary to place so much emphasis on obtaining capital receipts and that this presented an opportunity to invest in worthy community projects.
Councillor Stavrou, Finance and Technology Portfolio Holder stated that she could give no guarantees at this stage as detailed work was still being undertaken. She agreed to keep members informed as matters progressed and invited them to discuss any specific issues with her outside of the meeting.
(g) Pyrles Lane Nursery, Loughton
Councillor Angold-Stephens asked the Environment Portfolio Holder what steps would be taken in relation to the growing, importing and storage of plants and ensuring the availability of staff expertise in the event of the nursery being relocated.
Councillor Breare-Hall, Environment Portfolio Holder paid tribute to the work undertaken by the nursery staff, particularly in recent weeks in preparation for the period of the Olympic Games. He advised that there were a number of issues to consider in relation to any future provision and assured members that he would take account of all the options.
(h) Buckhurst Hill and Loughton Broadway Parking Reviews
Councillor Jennie Hart referred to the earlier question regarding the Buckhurst Hill Parking Review and asked the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder if he would apologise to residents of both Buckhurst Hill and Loughton Broadway for the long delays in progressing parking reviews in those areas. She pointed out that residents in Buckhurst Hill and Loughton Broadway had waited many months for parking reviews and she asked when a programme for these reviews would be available.
Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder stated that there had been a large number of reviews throughout the District and that the necessary scoping in relation to those reviews had taken a lot longer than had originally been anticipated. He repeated that many residents in Epping had expressed dissatisfaction with the results of the Epping Parking Review and accordingly he saw the need to adopt a different approach in relation to future reviews. He repeated that in relation to Buckhurst Hill he envisaged local ward councillors playing a leading role in consultation which he anticipated would commence in August/September 2012. He suggested that future schemes should concentrate on specific safety issues in particular localities rather than attempt to cover a very large area. He acknowledged that a number of no parking/waiting restriction road markings had disappeared from roads in Buckhurst Hill and said that he would ensure that these would be replaced as soon as new schemes were implemented by the North Essex Parking Partnership. Councillor Waller advised that he had no information at present about the Loughton Broadway Parking Review and could not apologise for matters which had taken place prior to him taking responsibility as Portfolio Holder.
(i) Police and Crime Commissioner Election
Councillor Murray asked the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder what steps were being taken to encourage awareness and achieve a high turnout for the Police and Crime Commissioner elections in November 2012.
Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder stated that officers were fully aware of the issues surrounding the conduct of an election in November. He stated that he expected there to be a national campaign which would probably be supplemented by an Essex?wide campaign. He said that he had expected all reasonable steps would be taken to ensure a high turnout.
(j) Community Safety Partnership and Police
Councillor Jacobs drew attention to the written report of the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder in which reference had been made to the detection rate in the local police division being lower than average. He questioned why this should be the case.
Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder stated that the powers of the Epping Forest Community Safety Partnership were limited and that the detection rate was a matter for the police. He said that he would be happy to facilitate an exchange of correspondence between the local police Superintendent and Councillor Jacobs.