Agenda and minutes

Public Speaking: To register your intention to speak at a Council, Cabinet or Committee meeting, please contact Democratic Services on committee@uttlesford.gov.uk or 01799 510410, 510548, 510369 or 510460. Panel, Forum and Working Group meetings do not generally permit public speaking. Please refer to a specific meeting's pdf agenda pack for further information and registration deadlines.

Live Broadcast: For Council, Cabinet and Committee meetings the video player will be available on this page under the Media banner a few minutes before the meeting is due to begin. Please note that Panel, Board, Forum and Working Group meetings are not generally broadcast on the website. We believe that live streaming video of our formal decision making meetings, and publishing the recordings to be watched back later, is good for democracy – and you can find these videos on our website. This video technology sits alongside the longstanding practice of providing seats in the public gallery for members of the public and journalists to turn up and watch our in-person meetings live. Please understand that whilst we will continue to make every reasonable effort to ensure that our key public meetings at which important decisions are live streamed and recorded, any failure in that technology does not in any way invalidate the legitimacy of that meeting or of the decisions taken at it. Even in the event of such occasional technical failures, the public gallery will still have been open, as required by law, and the minutes of the meetings will still be made available in due course.

Zoom and YouTube have their own privacy and data security policies, which can be accessed at www.zoom.us and www.youtube.com.

Venue: Committee Room - Council Offices, London Road, Saffron Walden, Essex CB11 4ER. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services  Email: committee@uttlesford.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

36.

Apologies for Absence and Declarations of Interest

To receive any apologies for absence and declarations of interest.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Asker, Harris and LeCount.

37.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 86 KB

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting 27 March 2018.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 March 2018 were signed and approved as a correct record subject to S Pugh (Assistant Director – Governance and Legal Services) being marked as present.

38.

Cabinet Forward Plan pdf icon PDF 80 KB

To receive the updated Cabinet Forward Plan.

Minutes:

Councillor Chambers entered the meeting at 7.35pm.

 

The Chairman said the Cabinet meeting scheduled for the 12 June to discuss Local Plan business was not included in the Forward Plan. He asked for this to be noted.

 

In response to a Member question, the Assistant Director – Corporate Services said officers would be meeting to discuss the Local Council Tax Support Scheme proposals for 2019/20 which would inform the budget consultation process. 

 

The Chairman asked when the proposal for the future management of the Day Centres within the District would be considered by Cabinet.

 

The Assistant Director – Corporate Services said the item did not have a confirmed date to be considered by Cabinet but had been added to the Forward Plan to ensure it did not slip off the work programme. He said he was uncertain as to whether this item required formal approval of the Cabinet.

39.

Scrutiny Work Programme pdf icon PDF 44 KB

To consider the Scrutiny Work Programme and suggested topics for 2018-19.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman invited requests from Members with regards to populating the Scrutiny work programme for 2018-19.

 

Councillor Light proposed to review the Council’s Investment Strategy and the effectiveness of Section 106 agreements at the September meeting.

 

Councillor G Barker said the issues surrounding S106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) were complex and Members would have to be made aware of the differences. He said the remit of the scoping report would need to be targeted and focused.

 

Councillor Light said a brief presentation should be given at the September meeting, explaining the differences between S106 and CIL agreements, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each process.

 

Councillor S Barker said she had been looking into the issue of airport parking, particularly in Takeley, and had information she could share with the Committee, if members so wished.

 

The Chairman summarised the discussion and confirmed that S106 agreements, the Council’s Investment Strategy and airport parking should be added to the Scrutiny work programme for the September meeting. 

40.

Centre for Public Scrutiny Review - Verbal Update

To receive a verbal update on the Centre for Public Scrutiny review.

Minutes:

The Assistant Director – Corporate Services said a CFPS Review report would be going to Cabinet later this month. He said officers would be meeting later this week to discuss the review, and a meeting would be scheduled with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee to incorporate the Committee’s views.

 

The Chairman said he was pleased work was ongoing and the update was noted. 

 

41.

Affordable Housing - Scoping Report pdf icon PDF 53 KB

To receive the Affordable Housing Scoping report.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Oliver entered the meeting at 7.50pm.

                       

The Project Manager – Planning Policy introduced the scoping report on the issue of affordable housing in the District. He said, due to the timing of the report, the issue of affordable housing was intrinsically linked to the ongoing Local Plan process and the proposed development of garden communities. He said the proposed communities would be developed with the principles of the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) in mind, one of which was the provision of affordable housing. He said the aim of this scoping report was to ensure the Scrutiny Committee was content with the Council’s approach to affordable housing and to establish the objectives of an affordable housing policy. A report would be brought back to the Committee at its meeting in June.

 

Councillor S Barker said the Council’s approach to developing specialist housing (for example, bungalows), as well as the target of 40% affordable homes for developments of fifteen units and above, needed to be reviewed.

She said whilst the 40% target was an admirable aspiration, it was not always realistic due to the nature of S106 agreements and the negotiations that occur between planners and developers.

 

The Chairman said the Council should know more regarding the effects of house and room sizes on the health of residents. He would also like to know how residents waiting for affordable housing would be prioritised in terms of ‘need.’

 

Councillor Gerard said the discussion needed to include how the term ‘affordable housing’ was defined. He said the feedback he had received from residents was that affordable housing was not affordable.

 

Councillor G Barker said the scoping report needed to be more exact and include specifics, for example an Uttlesford minimum home standard or size.

 

Councillor Davies said base line standards needed to be defined, such as the minimum size of food preparation areas and living spaces.

 

In response to a question from the Chairman, the Project Manager – Planning Policy said stakeholders who would be working with the Council to deliver affordable housing, such as Housing Associations, would reflect the same standards as those held by the Council.

 

Councillor Felton said she had a number of issues with ‘affordable housing’, particularly the issue of shared ownership. She said the nature of shared ownership could trap residents in a property, as the market value of these properties did not rise in line with the market rate. She said the solution to the housing crisis was to protect social housing.

 

Councillor Lemon questioned the affordability of ‘affordable housing’. He said there should be restrictions on private landlords accruing social housing and renting on the private market.

 

Councillors G Barker, S Barker and Lemon all declared non-prejudicial interests at this point as private landlords.

 

Councillor Chambers said the District, and the country as a whole, was in dire need of more houses. He said there was no such thing as affordable housing for people on low wages and provisions needed to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

42.

Recycling Update pdf icon PDF 85 KB

To receive the Recycling update report. 

Minutes:

Councillor S Barker introduced the report on waste and recycling. She said changes in the international market for waste, namely the tightening of China’s import quality control and the banning of certain waste categories, meant the Council was facing far higher recycling costs. Whereas previously the Council had been able to generate revenue from exporting recyclable waste to China, it would now to have to pay for it. To increase recycling rates and reduce costs, the Council would need to work with local communities to improve the quality of recyclable waste and prevent contamination. Education would be key in lowering the amount of contaminated recyclable material placed in Uttlesford’s recycling bins. 

43.

Exclusion of public and press

Consideration of a report containing exempt information within the meaning of section 100I and paragraph 3 part 1 Schedule 12A Local Government Act 1972.

Minutes:

RESOLVED that under section 100I of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

44.

Recycling Update (Part 2)

To receive Appendix A to the Recycling report.

Minutes:

Councillor Chambers left the meeting at 8.50pm.

 

In response to a Member question regarding the District’s refuse collection cycle, the Operations Manager – Street Services said she would need to review projections and modelling analysis to ascertain the economic benefits of such a change, but confirmed that other authorities had switched to a three weekly collection scheme to cut down on costs.

 

Councillor Oliver said it would be a good idea if a ‘welcome leaflet’ was provided to new residents who had just moved into the District, explaining Uttlesford’s waste and recycling system. He said this information needed to be communicated to new residents due to the variances between recycling systems across different districts. He added that press releases were of limited value in rural areas, as local papers were not always circulated in the villages.

           

Councillor S Barker said she could produce communication material which targeted a rural audience to be advertised in parish magazines.

 

In response to a Member question, the Operations Manager – Street Services said the Council were already committed to dealing with waste in an innovative way. She said the residual waste collected in the black bins was also recycled and converted into fuel. She said the standard of the material was much lower, due to the high levels of food contamination.

 

Members discussed the issue of contaminated recycling material and agreed that education and communication with residents would be the way to improve the rates and quality of recycling across the District.

 

The Operations Manager – Street Services said educational campaigns had been rolled out by national organisations such as Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP), which were focused on the quality, rather than the quantity, of recyclable materials. The new approach to recycling could be summarised as “If in doubt, leave it out,” and further communication materials would be provided.

 

Councillor S Barker said she would draft an Action Plan, along with the Operations Manager – Street Services, which would be brought back to the Committee at a future meeting. She invited Members to visit the District’s recycling plant to gain an understanding of how this process worked in practical terms.

 

Councillor Gerard said it would be interesting to attain the views of the Youth Council, and to ask them how they would approach educating the public in terms of recycling and the issue of contamination.

 

Councillors Lemon and Light agreed and said they would approach the Youth Council to ascertain their views. They would also invite members of the Youth Council to visit a recycling plant/multi re-use facility (MRF) with other members of the Committee.

           

           

            The meeting ended at 9.25pm.