Agenda item

To consider any reports from Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor Gregory provided a report on behalf of the Scrutiny Committee.

He informed Cabinet that the Scrutiny Committee had met twice since the previous Cabinet meeting. The Local Plan Scrutiny Meeting had reminded the Executive of the need to follow the agreed process in terms of the monitoring and oversight of the Local Plan process as agreed by Full Council and this Cabinet in 2020.

They had noted that many aspects of the process were on time and that appropriate reports were being submitted to Local Plan Leadership Group.

They were subsequently informed of the second delay to the process and there was a lengthy discussion two weeks ago at the most recent Scrutiny Meeting attended by the Leader of the Council, who answered seventeen questions.

That discussion had identified a sharp distinction between negative delays to the Local Plan where things had gone wrong or not been properly anticipated, and positive delays where material changes in circumstances required consideration for the benefit of residents, the District and the Council. The Committee were mindful of that approach and would be keeping it under review.

He said that they would like more attention to the details of process and the formal reporting mechanisms but understood and sympathised with the reasons for the delays which appear to be sound and well based.

He thanked the Executive for their openness and clarity for the way the delays had been addressed and requested that Scrutiny Committee were kept updated regarding any future changes at the earliest opportunity.

Councillor Gregory said that the Climate Change Action Plan was also discussed at the most recent Scrutiny meeting. The presentation had demonstrated that significant progress had been made with the Action Plan and this had been welcomed.

He noted that Members had hoped for further detail on specific expenditure both internal and in terms of grants received by the Council. They had asked for further clarity in identifying actions that have been achieved which were the responsibility of this administration and those that had been in process for a considerable period of time. He went on to detail examples of good and on occasion best practice demonstrated by South Cambridgeshire District Council in the implementation of their Action Plan. This had been referred to relevant Officers and the Portfolio Holder. He suggested that a series of meetings should be established with the Council.

Councillor Caton echoed Councillor Gregory`s comments and noted his concern that consultations on some of the evidence base being reviewed, such as the car parking review that offer a short consultation period, would be restrictive for Parish Councils to return comments. He also noted his disappointment that at the last Energy and Climate Change Working Group (ECCWG) meeting the carbon footprint report was only circulated after the meeting had taken place. He noted that this substantive document should have been interrogated by the ECCWG and they had not had the opportunity to do so.

The Leader of the Council noted the general predisposition of individuals to respond to consultations in the last week of the consultation, irrespective of the period of consultation, although she noted Councillor Caton`s comments.

The Leader said that this was the first time Uttlesford had established a portfolio concentrating on green issues. She noted that there were currently no designated staff in place, although they were being sought, and she agreed to continue to strive for improvements.

Councillor Pepper confirmed that she had submitted a further detailed report in the last few days which answered all the queries raised at Scrutiny.

Councillor Gregory said that all the queries raised at Scrutiny had not been addressed.

Councillor Pepper confirmed that she had provided:

• A detailed breakdown of expenditure
• An update regarding on street LED lighting, which is the responsibility of Essex County Council and was the last phase scheduled for upgrade in 2024
• The Green House Gas report was delayed while it was completed by Officers

Councillor Caton said that street lighting was not only a County Council responsibility, with Stansted Parish Council being responsible for 80% of their street lighting. He said that there was a need to be more flexible with the approach towards their involvement with LED lighting as there was substantial carbon emission tonnage available to the Council. He confirmed that 20 of the 290 street lights in Stansted had been upgraded and a further 20 were considered prohibitively complex as they were vintage style lighting.

Councillor Hargreaves drew Members attention to the recent press release which detailed the significant achievement of this Council in reducing CO2 emissions by more than 50%.

Councillor Gregory confirmed that Scrutiny Committee fully appreciated how difficult a portfolio Climate Change is and how hard it is to get and retain staff. He said that Councillor Pepper`s latest report circulated to Members was an excellent campaigning document but still lacked specific detail as repeatedly requested by the Scrutiny Committee. He raised concern about the publicised remarks made relating to the reduction in carbon emissions. He said that the report detailed offsetting within the purchase of utilities and that there was a lack of evidence to support the execution of due diligence. He said that this came at considerable extra cost and that press releases should not be confused with the factual basis of reports to Cabinet and Scrutiny.

Councillor Hargreaves explained that the cost of the green tariff would in the future be part of the general running costs of the Council. He confirmed that it probably would cost more to be greener, but that this was a necessary increase.

Councillor Pepper acknowledged that offsetting was not the best solution but was better than paying for fossil fuels; equally, it was better to pay for a green tariff rather than a black tariff.