Council Procedure Rule 12.6 provides for questions by any member of the Council to the Leader 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 12.7 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) where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication;
(c) where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to the questioner; or
(d) where the question relates to an operational matter, the Leader 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 12.8, 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) Police and Crime Commissioner Election for Essex
Councillor Murray referred to the written reports of the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder and the Support Services Portfolio Holder regarding the forthcoming election on 15 November 2012. He asked the Portfolio Holders how he should reply to residents who had informed him that they had received no direct communication from any of the candidates, that they were unaware of the role of the Commissioners, and that in the current difficult economic times there were far better ways to spend the money than on these unnecessary and unwanted elections.
Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder referred to a statement made by the Prime Minister that it might be some time before the benefits of Commissioners were realised. The Portfolio Holder acknowledged that turnout might not be high and that it was not easy to find out information about candidates. He pointed out that his Group had worked hard to inform residents about the Conservative candidate but could not of course be expected to provide details of the other candidates. He also advised that at present residents knew very little about the workings of the Essex Police Authority which was to be replaced by the Commissioner.
(b) Buckhurst Hill Parking Review
Councillor Spencer asked if the timetable of works for this review including Scotland Road would be available before Christmas 2012.
Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder stated that he had arranged a further meeting with all the Buckhurst Hill Ward members for the following day. He expressed the hope that this would be a productive meeting and thanked those members for their input to date. He said that he could not give a detailed answer to the question until the scope of the scheme had been agreed. He expressed the hope that the scheme would satisfy the views of local residents and would achieve tangible benefits.
(c) Local Plan – Issues and Options Consultation
Councillor Wagland referred to the responses to the Issues and Options consultation exercise. She asked the Planning Portfolio Holder if he shared her view that one of the reasons respondents had expressed concern about the extent of growth being predicated and the extent of Green Belt release which appeared appropriate for inclusion as potential options, was due to the figure work. She pointed out that the 2011 Census figures which might not have been available when original work was carried out in relation to issues and options indicated a growth rate for this district which appeared to be less than half the growth rate nationally for the relevant period. She also stated that the Council’s own figures for Housing showed overprovision in relation to the East of England target figures. She asked the Portfolio Holder if he will take these matters into account in proceeding with proposals.
Councillor Bassett, Planning Portfolio Holder confirmed that close attention would be paid to population numbers. He stated that this matter had been the subject of one of the questions included in the Issues and Options consultation using 2010 figures provided by the Office of National Statistics. He continued that from nine possible models which had been provided three had been taken forward for consultation. He confirmed that account would be taken of the 2011 Census figures as it would be necessary to have an accurate assessment of the number of houses required in order to meet the housing needs. Councillor Bassett stated that he would be looking at these matters in more detail and that further information would be shared with members when available. He advised that he would shortly be visiting Chelmsford to discuss the East of England figures with the person responsible and that he would inform members of the outcome of that visit. Councillor Bassett stated that it was fundamental to consider the extent of population growth in determining the number of houses required.
(d) Oakwood Hill Depot, Loughton/Depot for Waste Management Service
Councillor Girling drew attention to the written report of the Asset Management and Economic Development Portfolio Holder which stated that detailed design plans were being progressed in respect of the Oakwood Hill Depot and that alternative locations continued to be investigated for the relocation of the depot for the Waste Management Service. He stated that at a recent Loughton Town Council Planning and Licensing Committee meeting consideration had been given to Planning Application EPF/1020/12 which included a transport statement advising that the proposed development sought to provide a new depot facility to be used by Epping Forest District Council replacing an existing facility. In the light of this Councillor Girling sought clarification as to whether a decision had been made on where the depot would be sited and if not when that decision could be expected.
Councillor Grigg, Asset Management and Economic Development Portfolio Holder said that she did not have details of the planning application referred to but that alternative locations continued to be investigated for the relocation of the depot for the Waste Management Service. She said there were possibly five potential sites with consideration of one of two ahead of the others. She continued that it had been agreed that when a meaningful stage had been reached local Ward Councillors would be consulted. She advised that at this time only one member had been consulted about a proposed site. Councillor Grigg stated that it would be some time before any decision was reached and she drew attention to the approach made by the Environment Portfolio Holder for members to draw attention to any sites which they considered appropriate.
(e) Northern Gateway Access Package (NGAP)
Councillor Smith referred to the written report of the Planning Portfolio Holder and expressed concern about the proposal to submit a report to the Cabinet bearing in mind the date of the next Cabinet meeting and the deadline for responses to the consultation exercise. She asked the Planning Portfolio Holder to clarify how this Council’s response to the consultation would be formulated.
Councillor Bassett, Planning Portfolio Holder, expressed concern about the proposals of the London Borough of Enfield for an alternative route to the M25 via Junction 26 which would link the north-south road to the A121. He advised that an extraordinary meeting of the Planning Services Scrutiny Standing Panel had been arranged for the following day in order to consider the matter and agree this Council’s response. He stated that he would endorse the views formulated by the Scrutiny Panel.
(f) Welfare Reform Mitigation Action Plan
Councillor Jenny Hart referred to the written report of the Housing Portfolio Holder and asked whether Council tenants who fell into arrears could be declared intentionally homeless.
Councillor Stallan, Housing Portfolio Holder expressed thanks to the officers for their work in preparing a Welfare Reform Mitigation Action Plan. He advised that very few other Councils had taken this action. He pointed out that the Housing Scrutiny Panel would be undertaking a review of the Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme on 17 December 2012. He advised that steps were being taken to help the residents as much as possible and that he would need to speak to officers in order to respond to the question. He agreed to provide a written response in the Council Bulletin.
(g) Loughton High Road
Councillor Markham stated that the condition of the footways in Loughton High Road had deteriorated with loose paving stones and sinking tarmacadam. He suggested that the pavements required urgent attention and asked if pressure could be applied on the Highway Authority to undertake works as an approach via the local County Councillor had not met with any success.
Councillor Whitbread, Leader of the Council confirmed that this was a matter for Essex County Council. He stated that the matter would be raised with the Local Highways Panel but that in addition he would arrange for representations to be made to the County Council.
(h) Residents’ Parking Scheme – St John’s Road, Epping
Councillor Church asked the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder if he was aware how pleased residents were with the decision to proceed with this scheme. He asked the Portfolio Holder if Chapel Road and Ashlyns Road were included in the scheme.
Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder advised that Chapel Road and Ashlyns Road were included within the scheme. He stated that residents of all three roads would be consulted about the proposals in due course.
(i) Local Plan – Brownfield Sites
Councillor Knapman asked the Planning Portfolio Holder if he shared his disappointment that it had not been possible to produce a comprehensive list of brownfield sites in the district. Councillor Knapman stated that he believed such sites could provide in excess of 2,000 homes.
Councillor Bassett, Planning Portfolio Holder stated that he would wish to see brownfield sites developed first and he encouraged residents to notify him of the sites which they believed came within this definition. He pointed out that whilst some sites might appear to come within this definition there were reasons why they did not.
(j) Local Plan/North Weald Airfield Review Consultation Exercise
Councillor Watson asked the Support Services Portfolio Holder if he agreed that it was important to minimise the risk of a Judicial Review in respect of the Local Plan and that this Council should avoid anything that could be misinterpreted. She continued that whilst she was confident that the Portfolio Holder for Asset Management and Economic Development would be impartial in dealing with the North Weald Airfield consultation, she was concerned that as the Portfolio Holder was also a Ward Member for North Weald Bassett it could be perceived as a conflict of interest. Accordingly she asked the Support Services Portfolio Holder how he intended to mitigate this risk.
Councillor Ulkun, Support Services Portfolio Holder advised that he would respond in writing in the Council Bulletin.
(k) Extensions to Dwellinghouses
Councillor J H Whitehouse referred to the proposals of the Government to increase the permitted development rights in relation to extensions to dwellinghouses. She stated that local residents had expressed their concern to her about these proposals and she asked the Portfolio Holder if he would respond to the expected consultation exercise expressing those concerns. She also asked if he would publish information about the consultation exercise so that residents could respond directly to the Government.
Councillor Bassett, Planning Portfolio Holder said that he shared the concern of residents about these proposals. He advised that the issue had been discussed at a recent meeting of Chairmen of Planning Committees. He suggested that consultation was a loose word in this matter as the Government had published details of what it proposed to do and then sought comments on those proposals. He said that he foresaw the proposals would result in legal problems and the setting a precedence. Councillor Bassett said that he believed there was a short time within which to make comments and that he would provide Councillor Whitehouse with details of the timescale. He stated that he was not sure if the consultation exercise was open to members of the public or only to local authorities but he would clarify this and advise her about the position when providing details of the timescale.
(l) Fire Safety in Flat Blocks – Carpets in Common Parts
Councillor Jenny Hart stated that the Housing Portfolio Holder in July 2012 had made a decision to remove any carpets in common parts previously laid by residents where they did not conform with the relevant British Standard. She asked when residents would be informed of this decision and suggested that if the removal of the carpets was proposed in the near future it should be deferred until after the winter months.
Councillor Stallan, Housing Portfolio Holder stated that he would need to check with officers on the current position and that he would respond to this question in writing in the Council Bulletin.
(m) North Essex Parking Partnership
Councillor Jacobs stated that he understood this Council’s surplus in relation to parking had been transferred to the North Essex Parking Partnership contrary to what he had previously been advised. He asked the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder if this was the case and if so whether the surplus would benefit all districts in the partnership.
Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder said that he was unaware what advice had been given to Councillor Jacobs previously. He advised however that the amount transferred to the partnership had been minimal. He undertook to publish full details in the Council Bulletin.