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) Buckhurst Hill Parking Review
Councillor Watson referred to the written report of the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder regarding the Buckhurst Hill Parking Review. She stated that residents in Buckhurst Hill had waited a long time for this review and she asked the Portfolio Holder for an update of the programme and the timescales for undertaking the review.
Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder referred to a meeting held with Buckhurst Hill members which had resulted in valuable work being undertaken consulting residents about the needs of the area. Councillor Waller advised that all of the information received had been passed to the Traffic Management Team at Essex Highways who had been contracted to implement the scheme. The Portfolio Holder emphasised that this review would be focusing on particular areas rather than the whole of Buckhurst Hill. Councillor Waller advised that although the District Council was paying for the scheme it was the County Council which would determine timescales and he could not therefore be precise as he would wish. He continued that the County Council would prepare a project plan which would be submitted to the District Council with proposals, time lines and a break down of the costs. He advised that at that time he proposed to call a further meeting of Buckhurst Hill councillors for their views and that this would be followed by advertising the scheme to meet statutory requirements and further consultation with local residents. The Portfolio Holder expressed the hope that further consultation would be brief so that the scheme could be delivered as soon as possible.
(b) Initiatives and Rough Sleepers
Councillor Murray asked which of the initiatives summarised in the Housing Portfolio Holder’s written report was he most proud. He also asked if the Portfolio Holder agreed that rough sleepers should on occasions be referred to the nearest shelter in London rather than Chelmsford or Colchester.
Councillor Stallan, Housing Portfolio Holder stated that in his opinion the commencement of a Council House Building Programme for the District was the most important initiative as it has been over 20 years since the last Council dwelling had been built in this District. In relation to rough sleepers he advised that the first indication he had received of the procedure had been when he had received e-mails from members about what was being done. He said he was aware that the Council only dealt with the Chelmsford and Colchester shelters and would speak to officers about the possibility of using the shelters in London bearing in mind that the Council made grants to those in Chelmsford and Colchester. He said he would submit a report to a future meeting if necessary.
(c) Cross Rail 2
Councillor Angold-Stephens referred to the written report of the Planning Portfolio Holder regarding Cross Rail 2. He stated that the londonfirst.co.uk website quoted congestion on the Central Line as being 3/4 standing between Leytonstone Station and Mile End Station and 2/3 between Woodford Station and Leytonstone Station during rush hours. He questioned where these statistics had come from as in his opinion they totally under-estimated congestion on the line at almost any time of day. To support his view he stated that the carriage in which he had been travelling the previous week at 10.30 p.m. had over 30 people standing. He invited the Planning Portfolio Holder to make the strongest representations possible to the Mayor of London and to the current consultation process about the erroneous statistics which had led to the abandonment of the Leytonstone/Epping route. He suggested that without further upgrade to the transport route there was a possibility of additional housing provision along the Central Line corridor and possibly the M11 corridor being compromised in the long term.
Councillor Bassett, Planning Portfolio Holder, stated that he had taken the statements from the Cross Rail 2 – Supporting London’s Growth Report. He said he would be happy to query the figures if Councillor Angold-Stephens provided him with the relevant information.
(d) Careline
Councillor Lea stated that the Council’s Careline Service was excellent. She asked the Housing Portfolio Holder if he would endeavour to make sure that the same standard of service was maintained under any new arrangements.
Councillor Stallan, Housing Portfolio Holder stated that there were County Councillors present at this meeting and they would no doubt take this message back to County Hall.
(e) Buckhurst Hill Parking Review
Councillor Spencer asked the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder if he would include the time frame for this review in the Council Bulletin so that councillors could inform local residents.
Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder referred to his earlier statement on this matter and repeated that Essex County Council would progress the scheme as quickly as possible.
(f) Waste Management
Councillor Mohindra referred to the written report of the Environment Portfolio Holder that re-cycling performance for quarter 3 had been better than expected. He asked the Portfolio Holder to provide further details.
Councillor Breare-Hall, Environment Portfolio Holder, reported that a figure just short of 64% had been achieved for quarter 3. He cautioned that this might have been an anomaly but assured Councillor Mohindra that the Council was working towards that level if it had not already been achieved.
(g) Environmental Health and Neighbourhoods – Horses
Councillor Wixley drew attention to the written report of the Environment Portfolio Holder and sought an assurance that the dead horses fly-tipped in the District had not found their way to the food chain. He also sought further information about the fate of the horse which had been “fly-grazed” in a field in Roydon.
Councillor Breare-Hall, Environment Portfolio Holder, assured Councillor Wixley that the dead horses had been taken by a regulated waste company. In relation to the horse left in Roydon he agreed to find out more details and to publish them in the Council Bulletin.
(h) Epping Station Car Park
Councillor J M Whitehouse before asking his question declared a non-pecuniary interest in the matter by virtue of being a member of Epping Town Council.
He advised that a member of the public had submitted a public question for this meeting but that it had become lost in the system and had not appeared on the agenda. He stated that he proposed therefore to ask a similar question under this item. Councillor Whitehouse referred to the recent transfer of vehicles from the Epping Underground Station Car Park to the Council’s Town Centre car parks which he said was having a damaging effect on the Epping Market and shops. He asked the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder if consideration was being given to amending the tariffs of the Council’s Car Parks to deter commuters from using them.
Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder said he was aware that car parking charges at underground stations had been increased and this had led to commuters parking their vehicles in the Council’s Town Centre car parks. He advised that further work was being undertaken by Council officers including an update of the views of traders following which consideration would be given to reviewing charges in the Council’s car parks. He assured members that this matter would be addressed as soon as reasonably practicable.
(i) Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
Councillor J H Whitehouse invited the Housing Portfolio Holder to comment on a report earlier in the day on BBC Radio Essex that people in the Epping Forest District were being housed in bed and breakfast accommodation longer than the statutory six week maximum period.
Councillor Stallan said he was shocked that the Council had been mentioned in the report. He said that if correct this situation was unsatisfactory and he would speak to officers and publish details in the Council Bulletin. He added that to his knowledge BBC Radio Essex had not sought a comment from the Council before the broadcast.
(j) Property and Personal Security
Councillor Smith asked the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder if he would provide details of any current campaigns of the Epping Forest Safer Communities Partnership aimed at raising awareness of property and personal security and how any such information was being distributed.
Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder referred to the publicity material which he had placed in Members’ places before this meeting. He said that crime overall was falling in the District but there had been an increase in domestic burglary offences. He suggested that this was due the proximity of the District to London. Councillor Waller stated that the “Lock-‘em Out” campaign was aimed at drawing residents’ attention to the steps they could take to keep their homes secure. He stated that the campaign was being run over a period of eight months in this District, Brentwood and Harlow. The Portfolio Holder added that, in addition, the Police were focusing on identified hot spots. He said he felt the Council could make a genuine impact on reducing this type of criminal activity the increase of which was an exception to the general trend.
(k) Loughton High Road
Councillor Markham referred to the comments he had made at the last Council meeting about the condition of pavements in Loughton High Road and asked the Leader of the Council if he had taken up the matter with Essex County Council and the Local Highways Panel.
Councillor Whitbread, Leader of the Council stated that he had written to Essex County Council and was awaiting a reply.
(l) Judicial Review – Sainsbury’s
Councillor Angold-Stephens drew attention to the Judicial Review being pursued by Sainsbury’s in relation to changes to the road layout in Chigwell Lane which he suggested could threaten the viability of the Sainsbury’s operation at The Broadway. He asked the Asset Management and Economic Development Portfolio Holder if she agreed that a supermarket was vital to the future prosperity of The Broadway and if she would do all she could to reach a solution ensuring that a supermarket was retained on the Sainsbury’s site as well as addressing the traffic needs. He also asked if she agreed that the Judicial Review risked the loss of this valuable facility whilst incurring substantial legal costs for the Council.
Councillor Grigg, Asset Management and Economic Development Portfolio Holder confirmed that she wished to see a supermarket retained on the site which was something that residents wanted. She stated that the Council had received enquiries from another operator expressing an interest if the Sainsbury’s store was closed. She advised that following a meeting with Polofind, Sainsbury’s and Council officers possible alternatives were being assessed and if agreed these could avoid the need for a full Judicial Review. She added that she could not prevent Sainsbury’s from continuing with a Judicial Review and if they did so the Council would have to defend its actions.
(m) Area in the vicinity of Sainsbury’s Store, Loughton Broadway
Councillor Girling stated that the Council was responsible for ensuring a vibrant shopping experience for residents. He asked the Asset Management and Economic Development Portfolio Holder what action she and Council officers had taken to persuade Stobbarts to clean up the area in the vicinity of the Sainsbury’s store which was beginning to resemble a slum and was attracting anti?social behaviour and discouraging shoppers.
Councillor Grigg, Asset Management and Economic Development Portfolio Holder said that there had been some communication with Stobbarts but this had not achieved a positive response. She stated it was very disappointing that Stobbarts had closed the shops close to the Sainsbury’s store and allowed the area to fall into its current state. She undertook to ask the officers to speak to Stobbarts again with a view to getting the area tidied up and becoming a more pleasant place.