The Council’s rules provide for questions by any member of the Council to the Leader or any Portfolio Holder, without notice on:
(i) reports under the previous item; 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.
The Council’s rules provide that answers to questions without notice may take the form of:
(a) 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 Service Director.
In accordance with the Council’s rules, a time limit of thirty 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 ten minutes at their discretion.
Minutes:
The Chairman thanked Members for giving notification of their intention to ask a question without notice.
She advised Members that any interpretation of breaking the purdah rules, the Monitoring Officer would intervene and that she would not permit the question to be answered. The purdah rules were designed to ensure that Council resources would not be used to promote individual candidates. Any webcast meeting was a council resource and therefore cannot be used for self-promotion.
(a) Conservative Party Literature
Councillor S Heap stated that his question was to the Leader of Council and referred to a leaflet that was published and distributed by the Conservative Party about the Green Party which contained some inaccuracies that need to be addressed. Firstly, the Green Party want to abandon or abolish home ownership, which was not true and secondly that the Green Party wanted to introduce Clean Air Zones CAZ all over the country, maybe that was a good idea but that would only happen if there was a cheap and viable alternative to it. It should be pointed out that the CAZ which was proposed for Epping Forest was only proposed by the Conservatives and only voted in favour of by the Conservatives. Lastly, it was also stated in the leaflet that the Green Party wished to increase taxes and redistribute wealth. Therefore could the Leader explain how did any fiscal policy work at District, County or National level, if it’s not redistribution of wealth and how could the Leader as a member of the County Council vote to increase the ECC proportion of Council Tax and redistribute that wealth.
Councillor C Whitbread stated that Councillor Heap gave a very long diatribe which was a political broadcast before he got to any form of question and the information came from the 1919 Green Party election manifesto and if Councillor Heap had checked it then he would know where his party stood.
Council Tax in Epping Forest was the lowest in Essex and this Council protected frontline services. There was nothing wrong with increasing Council Tax for high quality services if you did it in the correct way and that has always been the way of Epping Forest and was also the way of Essex County Council. Therefore, I do not see the point of your question as it was not a question for this Council on wealth re-distribution, this Council was about providing the best quality frontline services for its residents at the best possible value.
He stated that there was had never been a vote on the CAZ because the CAZ had not even been designed or consulted on and what this Conservative group had said was that we will do everything we can to mitigate against the need for a CAZ. I would like to point out that it was the Liberal Democrats and the one Green party member at Essex County Council who voted to bring in road charges across hot spots in Essex, Epping Forest being one of those hot spots. Therefore, it was the policy of the Liberal Democrats and the Green party to implement CAZ’s throughout Essex and not that of the Conservative party.
(b) Council Land Holdings
Councillor S Murray asked if the relevant Portfolio Holder could confirm that the audited accounts, when they were audited, were likely to show a substantial decrease in the valuation of the Loughton High Road units, 202-226, which included Centric Parade compared to the purchase price. Also could Members be updated with the plans that are being thought about to safeguard Jessel Green from future large-scale vehicular incursions. He stated that on the 15 April he did email the relevant Portfolio Holders asking what steps they intended to take to stop vehicular incursions on Jessel Green
Cllr J Philip advised that he did not have the audited accounts from the previous financial year which was explained in great detail at the Audit & Governance Committee meeting in March 2021 and was also explained in my report. An error had also been found in the previous year which the Auditors had not picked up and I am hopeful that these accounts will be ready early on in the new municipal year. He stated that he believed that there would be a dip in the valuation of Centric Parade not a significant or huge dip but given that the valuation was carried out and the beginning of the pandemic last year which caused a dip on all valuations at that point because it was not known what was actually going to happen over the last year. Therefore, I do expect a reduction in the valuation but would expect it to be recovered in the following years’ accounts.
Councillor H Whitbread advised that post-election she would arrange for a briefing for all members from the Safety and Community Team on Gypsy and Traveller incursions and then have another meeting with the ward members to discuss solutions and ways of protecting Jessel Green moving forwards.
(c) Increase in litter across the district
Councillor S Rackham advised her question was to the Environmental and Technical Services Portfolio Holder and stated that the Pandemic had caused an increase in litter across the district, from town centres and into rural villages and asked the Portfolio Holder what action had been taken so far and what action would be taken going forward to address this issue.
Councillor N Avey stated that litter was a pressing issue and he had hoped to put a motion before Member’s on this subject but was precluded by election rules. He assured Members that there had been a lot of work going on to address this issue and that he would share more details with Members after the election. In the meantime he stated that great efforts were being made to address the problem of littering on the streets in the district and also in the rural areas.
(d) Clean Air Zones
Councillor J M Whitehouse advised that Member’s had been inadvertently mislead earlier regarding Clean Air Zones. The national guidance stated that Clean Air Zones fell into two categories, non-charging Clean Air Zones and charging Clean Air Zones there was a sentence in the guidelines which said ‘Clean Air Zone proposals are not required to include a charging zone’ but it was a charging zone which the air pollution mitigation strategy that the Cabinet voted for at the draft stage and the Council adopted. It could have been written into that strategy that they wanted to avoid or mitigate or have a different approach if they wanted to, but they didn’t, they chose to make the Clean Air Zone a central part of that strategy.
Councillor C Whitbread advised that he did not want to get into a debate on Clean Air Zones but felt it was important to come back as the facts that were just stated were wrong. This Council had not designed the Clean Air Zone and have not debated the details of the Clean Air Zone and until it has been designed and then been consulted on there was no charging regime and therefore there was no Clean Air Zone. The Council had to look at the mitigation to make sure this district did not need a Clean Air Zone. There had been no vote on charging, no vote on the design of a Clean Air Zone
Strategy and local people were being misled.
(e) Town Centre Sites in Epping
Councillor J M Whitehouse advised that his question was to the Commercial and Regulatory Services Portfolio Holder as a Qualis representative. With regard to the three planning applications for the essential town centre sites in Epping that have been submitted, a lot of residents took part in consultation last autumn despite the constraints of the pandemic restrictions and could you therefore summarise what changes had been made to the planning applications as a result of that consultation.
Councillor A Patel advised that as these were live active planning applications and he felt that he should not comment on them at this stage. He added that the changes were visible on the submitted plans.
(f) Local Plan
Councillor C C Pond advised his question was to the Planning and Sustainability Portfolio Holder and asked him what date it was proposed to issue the main modifications to the Local Plan for public consultation.
Councillor Bedford advised that he was not aware of the actual date but knew it was at the end of May and as soon as he knew the date he would inform Councillor C C Pond.
(g) Anti-Social Behaviour – North Weald
Councillor P Bolton advised his question was to the Housing and Community Services Portfolio Holder and stated that some residents in North Weald were being plagued by quad bikes and motorbikes who were accessing the Rayley Lane Golf Range site and asked what the Council were doing to support the residents who were suffering from this anti-social behaviour.
Councillor H Whitbread advised that she was made aware of this issue a number of months ago in her surgery on Thornwood. This had been a big issue for residents and last week Councillor C Whitbread, Council Officers, Essex Police and representatives of the Parish Council went to visit where the issue was. Four primary actions have been taken at this stage and further actions are still being looked into. It was agreed that a letter would be written to the land owner by the Leader of Council regarding unauthorised access to allow the use of quad and scramble bikes and that the access route to the side of the cemetery gate would be fitted with a bike inhibitor restricting access as approved equipment specified by Essex County Council. It was also agreed that a mobile CCTV camera would be mounted outside of the cemetery to monitor access after the inhibitor had been installed and PC Andy Cook would continue to patrol and monitor the situation.
(h) Demand Responsive Transport Trial
Councillor J H Whitehouse advised her question was to the Environmental and Technical Services Portfolio Holder regarding the Demand Responsive Transport Trial that was in his report and commented that it was good news that the trial service had been extended until April 2022. Could the Portfolio Holder comment on the plans for the next twelve months as she would like to make an appeal that you would consider in extending the service to Waltham Abbey and the ulcer clinic that takes place in Waltham Abbey. I would like to make Members aware that people who have leg ulcers need to get to the clinic in Waltham Abbey every week to have their ulcers dressed. An elderly resident from Theydon Bois had advised that he has to spend £27.00 every week to get to the clinic and home by taxi and it was becoming a financial strain. It had further been pointed out that there was no phone number to access the Community Transport, not all elderly people who need to access these services have computers and therefore a phone number should always be provided.
Councillor N Avey stated that it wasn’t appropriate for him to go into too much detail as it was written in my report, however, I do take your point about having access to a telephone number and will speak to Officers. I have taken on board your comments about the resident needing the get from Theydon Bois to the clinic in Waltham Abbey and will see what we can do about that in our plans for this service.
Councillor J Philip advised that at his request, for another Theydon Bois resident, he had been given the telephone number for the Epping Forest Community Transport Service who ran the Demand Responsive Service of 01992 579556.
(i) Reopening of the Districts High Streets
Councillor D Dorrell advised that his question was to the Finance and Economic Development Portfolio Holder and asked if he could report back on the reopening of our high streets and shopping parades across the district and outline what action the Council has taken to assist as the measures start to lift.
Councillor J Philip advised that the reopening had been very successful, the Leader had already mentioned that the Council had put in place free car parking for a week which was well received by the residents and shop owners, this resulted in a reasonable footfall in the high streets in that first week. The Council provided free ‘please wear a mask’ posters for the shops and businesses, some of the larger chains used the Council’s posters as they stood out and were more effective than their own. Additional restriction grants and reopening grants were being distributed to help the businesses in the district details of these can be found on the Councils website. A local florist, who also gave an interview on Radio Essex, had thanked the Council for all of their help and support in getting her business back on track. The Council will continue to work with residents and business to help and support them back into the high streets and gave credit to residents, businesses and Council Officers in making this happen smoothly.
(j) Anti-Social Behaviour in Buckhurst Hill
Councillor S Neville advised that his question was to the Housing and Communities Portfolio Holder and stated that in the Portfolio Holders report on page 78, Anti-Social Behaviour it referred to a rough sleeper in Buckhurst Hill and a case being prepared against him for a Criminal Behaviour Order as he had breached a Community Protection Notice and asked if there were any updates or if it was still ongoing, was there a timeline.
Councillor H Whitbread stated that this has been an ongoing key issue in Buckhurst Hill and advised that she would like to have a conversation offline regarding this issue due to GDPR reasons. She did however inform Members that the Council had done their duty in terms of engagement and working with a partnership of other organisations.
(k) Car Parking Charges in the Car Parks in the Forest
Councillor S Jones advised her question was to the Environmental and Technical Services Portfolio Holder and stated that a number of residents had asked why this Council was introducing car park charging in the forest car parks after possibly being misled by the opposition parties. Therefore, could the Portfolio Holder please confirm that this was not the decision of this Council and to clarify whether it was in the authority of this Council to enforce.
Councillor N Avey advised that he had received information that some Members or their representatives have alleged, on the doorstep campaign, that this Council were responsible for that particular issue. He confirmed that it was nothing to do with this Council and was solely a matter driven by the Corporation of London and this Council did not have any responsibility for car parks in the Forest.
(l) Landmark Building Cladding
Councillor D Wixley advised that his question was to the Commercial and Regulatory Services Portfolio Holder and referred to the question he asked regarding the Landmark Building in the Broadway, Debden and stated that he asked in the Council had incurred any cost for the replacement of the cladding. It was not explicit in the minutes of the last meeting as to whether or not this was the case, it looked as if Higgins bore the costs but for the avoidance of any doubt could he confirm if the Council did or did not incur any costs.
Councillor A Patel confirmed that the costs relating to the removal and replacement of the cladding on the Landmark Building were borne entirely by Higgins Homes.
(m) Epping Forest Youth Council
Councillor D Sunger stated that the £3,000 awarded by Cabinet to the Epping Forest Youth Council for their mental health project and asked the Housing and Communities Portfolio Holder if she would join him in thanking and congratulating the Epping Forest Youth Council for their MiLife C19 mental health project especially in these difficult times reaching out and supporting young people with their emotional and mental health.
Councillor H Whitbread thanked Councillor Sunger for his question and for highlighting the work of the Youth Council. She advised that she was an alumnus of the Youth Council and was proud of the work they were doing especially around mental health in young people during the pandemic, identifying the key issues and recognising the needs of young people locally.
(n) Road Charges
Councillor L Burrows advised his question was to the Leader of the Council and asked him to confirm that there was never any vote for road charges by Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) and that EFDC does not have any authority to implement charges. Could he also confirm that the Liberal Democrats at Essex County Council did put forward an amendment to the budget calling for tax rises and road charges in hot spots across Essex including Epping Forest.
Councillor C Whitbread confirmed that EFDC had never voted on road charges. At the Full Council debate the amendments were discussed and a vote was never taken on road charges. He also confirmed that the Liberal Democrats at Essex County Council had brought forward an amendment for a council tax increase for local people which was proposed to go towards the cost for road charges across hot spots in Essex to bring in Clean Air Zones.