Agenda item

To consider the report regarding the Stansted Airport Scrutiny Review: Lessons Learned Action Plan.

Councillor Hargreaves presented the Stansted Airport Review: Lessons Learned Action Plan report.

  

He proposed to approve the recommendations as set out in the report:

 

1. To approve those action plan changes requiring changes to either the Council’s Constitution or explicitly to future Member behaviours – as clearly identified thematically in each section of the report were approved.
2. That Council formed a Task and Finish Group to consider draft Constitutional Changes as proposed in section 15.2.2, to be made up of one member each nominated by the Conservative and Independent party groups, and two members from the joint Liberal Democrat and Green group, alongside five members nominated by the majority Residents for Uttlesford group.
3. The action plan changes relating to operational processes and approaches in areas either delegated to Officers or else held independently by Officers statutorily in their own rights – again as clearly identified thematically in each section of the report were noted.

 

Councillor Lees seconded the proposal. She reserved the right to speak.

 

Councillor Sell welcomed the report and recommendations. He acknowledged that Members had received a significant amount of training for the Stansted Airport application. He suggested that the culture of the Council was undermined by the independent report and that the Council needed to move forward.

 

Councillor Driscoll said that he supported training for Members.

 

Councillor Smith said the review of the Constitution should be thorough.

 

Councillor Bagnall said that lessons would be learned but the Council needed to move forward.

 

Councillor Fairhurst said that the Council should be rigorous and robust in their self scrutiny and that the lessons would be learned. He asked how the Council would avoid repeating the errors of the past.

 

Councillor Lavelle said that the recommendations were relevant to all of the semi-judicial committees. He said that the proposed Task and Finish Group to focus on amendments to the Constitution was fundamental to progress.

He said that Members were reliant on the officers to help with the technical details on how to implement matters within a semi-judicial process. It was a shared endeavor. He said that when officer recommendations were significantly different to what had been discussed at Committee, this should be brought back to Committee for agreement.

 

Councillor Isham said that it was within the remit of the Monitoring Officer to assess any minutes held on meetings with the Airport. The evidence base which informed the Action Plan was incomplete. It was for the Chief Executive to review these processes. 

 

Councillor Gregory said certain information had been denied to the Task and Finish Group in line with privacy laws. He said the current commitment to openness and transparency was not so apparent in the past.

  

Councillor Reeve said that he remained proud of the Council and supported the recommendations for improvement. He paid tribute to current and former officers on whose expert advice Members routinely rely. He said that written notes would be made of Member briefings as had been requested.

 

Councillor Lees said that Members were advised how the meeting would be run by the email from the Chief Executive. She said that she would have welcomed comments ahead of the meeting from any aggrieved parties and would have been open to negotiation. She said that she would like to be more collaborative and work together to move forward. Furthermore, she said that Officer and Developer meetings would be noted for the file in future and had already been introduced.

 

The Chair moved to a vote.

 

                   

 

RESOLVED:

 

I.                To approve those action plan changes requiring changes to either the Council’s Constitution or explicitly to future Member behaviours – as clearly identified thematically in each section of the report.

II.               That the Council forms a Task and Finish Group to consider draft Constitutional Changes as proposed in section 15.2.2, to be made up of one member each nominated by the Conservative and Independent party groups, and two members from the joint Liberal Democrat and Green group, alongside five members nominated by the majority Residents for Uttlesford group.

III.             To note those action plan changes relating to operational processes and approaches in areas either delegated to Officers or else held independently by Officers statutorily in their own rights – again as clearly identified thematically in each section of the report.

 

 

The meeting ended at 20:34.

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of Public Statements: Full Council, 19 July 2022

 

Mr Woodcock

 

Mr Woodcock, a resident of Stansted Mountfitchet reminded Council that he had addressed them in February 2022 regarding the need for an NHS licensed community pharmacy to be located as near as possible to Stansted Surgery. He said that he had subsequently learned that the communities of Stansted Mountfitchet, Stort Valley and the surrounding communities urgently need the Council`s assistance.

He said that Essex County Council were conducting another online consultation which he had forwarded to Council on 8 July 2022 including the draft Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment Report dated May 2022. He asked whether District Councillors had been informed of the consultation by the County Council.

He asked Members to consider the report and respond to the survey before 5 August 2022.

He said that:

·        The base data within the report identified that Uttlesford had only eight licensed community pharmacies, one per 12,000 residents or 80 square kilometres

·        It was reported that there were eight dispensing doctors surgeries within the district, but they were not identified by location

·        Uttlesford had fewer community pharmacies than any other Essex district

·        Uttlesford residents have to travel further to access a community pharmacy than other Essex residents

·        NHS regulations state that community pharmacies should be one mile apart. Saffron Walden and Dunmow both have two pharmacies that are a few hundred yards apart. Access from local surgeries was relatively easy, unlike Chapel Hill in Stansted which involved a walk up a steep hill from the surgery to access the only pharmacy on Cambridge Road, which was often closed

 

He asked Members to;

·        Read the draft Essex County Council Health and Wellbeing Pharmaceutical Needs Report

·        Read his report to Essex County Council, titled “The Case For An Additional NHS Licensed Pharmacy In Stansted Mountfitchet”

·        Note his analysis of part of the report and compare the facts relating to Uttlesford compared with other Essex districts

·        Respond to the latest Essex County Council consultation

 

Dr Noble

 

Dr Noble asked Councillor Evan to explain how the Planning Department had been overhauled recently. He said that he had recently moved to the area from another district, understood the challenges that planning presented and was interested to learn exactly what changes had been implemented.

 

Councillor Evans said that the East of England Peer Review (EEPR) undertaken in autumn 2021 had provided the foundation for the work currently underway and to be undertaken in the future.

He said that updates regarding the Local Plan could be accessed through the Council`s website.

He said that reports presented to the Scrutiny Committee in February 2022 followed through from work identified in the EEPR and outlined all of the steps undertaken to that date. This was then taken to Cabinet in the same month and subsequently a Director of Planning was recruited. Additionally they were looking to recruit additional planning officers, although this was currently proving challenging countrywide.

He said that there would be a further detailed report regarding progress made and actions taken presented to Council in September 2022 and that he would email Dr Noble his detailed response to the question.

 

Dr Noble asked how many vacancies there currently were in the Planning Department and said that he had heard in the pub that planning powers had been revoked from the Council and whether this impacted the current planning outlook.

 

In response to a question from the Chair, Dr Noble agreed that he would be content to receive Councillor Evans` response by email.

 

Councillor Sell asked that Councillor Evans` email to Dr Noble be shared with all Members, which was agreed by the Chair.

 

Mr Ross

 

Mr Ross, Chair of Stansted Airport Watch, said that he had focused on learning lessons for the future from the Stansted Airport Inquiry when he addressed Scrutiny Committee last week and had made five recommendations.

He said that Scrutiny Meeting had lasted for over three hours, during which time Members from all parties had made some excellent points. He hoped that the shortcomings identified would be addressed to ensure lessons were learned and appropriate changes made to the Constitution.

 

He said that he was not impressed with the external report and that the claim that the Planning Committee had acted politically was nonsensical as it was a cross party decision.

 

He said that the Action Plan drafted by the Chief Executive went some way to addressing the shortcomings, but did not go far enough. The starting point appeared to be the presumption that the Planning Committee were responsible for the disappointing outcome of the inquiry. He said that Members were not responsible for the decision or the failure to record thirty or forty meetings, contrary to the Council`s Constitution and he raised concerns that there was nothing in the action plan to prevent a recurrence of the same issue.

He noted that Members were not responsible for entering into what appeared to be an open ended financial arrangement with barristers which did not represent value for money for residents, and again was not addressed within the action plan to prevent recurrence.

 

He said that a very similar public inquiry took place in 2007, again opposed and lost by the Council. Costs were awarded against the Council, but on that occasion BAA owned the airport and settled for £100,000. MAG who now own the airport seem to want their pound of flesh in their settlement. He thought it was worth bearing in mind.

 

Ms Jones

 

Ms Jones, a Broxted resident for over forty years said that she was very aware of the growth of Stansted Airport and the different activities undertaken to attempt to curtail further growth. She said that she was disappointed at the recent activity surrounding the latest planning application and that she felt some Councillors had been unfairly criticised and castigated.

 

She said that she was not fully familiar with the Council administration protocol, but thought that Councillors who put themselves forward to support their constituents needed residents support and thanks.

 

She said that if Councillors had failed to follow protocol then perhaps it required revision and change. She thanked Councillors who had put themselves forward to represent others.