Reports to follow.

Members can ask up to two questions to two different Chairs.

 

Any Member may ask a Chair a written or oral question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties or which affects the Council’s area and which falls within the area of responsibility of the Chair’s committee.

 

The period allowed for written and oral questions and answers will not exceed 60 minutes without leave of the Mayor.

 

Two written questions have been received from Cllr Dr Barrett, as follows:

 

To the Chair of Planning and Licensing and Audit and Scrutiny.

 

It was disappointing to see on the front page of our local newspapers that taxpayers money was required to compensate a resident for the council failing to enforce a planning condition decided in committee due to administrative errors. It was further disappointing to see this was resolved through the local ombudsman because the council's complaints procedure failed to act. What measures are put in place to stop this happening again?

 

Response

 

The situation and outcome are disappointing. This related to a planning application at 59 Crown Street, Brentwood, reference 18/00309/FUL. A complaint was received from a neighbouring resident regarding details of the screening provided as part of the development scheme. The complaint was investigated thoroughly in line with the councils’ formal complaints policy. A clear outcome was provided explaining certain technical complexities, such as the difference between the screening that had been provided and the limitations of taking enforcement action for things outside the decision notice approval. The complainant requested that the local government ombudsman review the case, as is their right.

 

The ombudsman conducted an assessment and concluded that the council was at fault. This was because plans for the balustrade and planters, which the complainant referred to, were not included in the initial decision notice. This meant that enforcement action to implement them could not be taken. Similarly, though the balustrade and planters were included in the plans for the conditions discharge that related to the privacy screen (reference 18/00309/COND/3), this did not relate to the matters of the condition, and though not within the formal decision notice, this would not have given the council the basis to enforce against the lack of these features.

 

The council reviewed the ombudsman decision. It was concluded that there were no grounds for challenge according to guidance, in terms of matters of law such as evidence inaccuracies or new information affecting the decision. Any legal challenge would have cost implications.

 

On review, there was an administrative error that meant the council could not require the applicant to adhere to the balcony drawings (other than the privacy screen), which impacted upon the complainant’s amenity. As a result, a formal apology was issued and £1,000 compensatory payment made to enable the installation of additional planting to screen the outlook from the balcony. Additional training has been provided for staff undertaking administration tasks, such as issuing decision notices, so that a repeat of this situation can be avoided in future.

 

The council makes budgetary provision for losses, such as in the case of appeals or compensation. The council as local planning authority processes and determines more than 1,000 applications over the course of a year on average, a trend that has been increasing. This includes financial income through various application fees from developers, which inform budgetary projections to offset any losses. As is regularly reported to members, the council ranks highly nationwide on application performance. Within that data there are always lessons to be learned on improvements, whether by the council or by applicants. As such, reports are issued to members on appeal outcomes and enforcement action, among other things. More recently the use of conditions has been identified as being an area for improvement, in terms of their use and wording in line with national guidance.

 

The outcome in this situation falls short of the standards we expect. The apology and compensation were offered as a result. Lessons are being learned to continually improve the service.

 

This is a recent decision and so has not yet been reported to Audit & Scrutiny Committee, which will happen in due course once reviewed by the Formal Complaints and Performance Indicator Member Working Group.

 

To the Chair of Community, Environment, and Enforcement

 

Residents with access needs have reported that the mobility scooter service in the multi-storey car park has ceased taking the scooter to and from vehicles, meaning to use the service you need an additional abled person. Many residents with access requirements who relied on this service can no longer access Brentwood High St as a consequence of this change. Why and when was this change made and can it be reversed?

 

Response

 

The process for hiring a mobility scooter was initially changed in October 2021. The scheme has been running for a number of years prior to this however it became apparent that we could not always guarantee a member of staff on site or at the right location to assist. The revised process was introduced to ensure the scooters were accessible to requestees and not limited by staff on site and the new scheme is in line with other schemes that operate mobility scooters. The scheme is assisted as it is next to the Disabled Access parking bays located on the same floor as the scooter. This we feel makes the scooters accessible and will only ever be a short distance from anyone’s vehicle. Further we have discussed the scheme with the Brentwood Access Group.

 

As said above we have adopted a scheme that other providers use and appears to have worked well. We provide ready to use scooters that are available on demand.

 

Moving forward the new scheme will not be limited by core hours of employees and will be available to use during the same operating hours of the car park. I can also confirm that the scheme will be investing in the procurement of new class2 mobility scooter(s)

 

We are looking to install the revised service and scooter(s) later this summer however the Council will continue to monitor the situation and the service.

 

Due to no Committee meetings taken place ahead of the Ordinary Council agenda publication, no Chairs Reports were included in the agenda. 

 

Cllr Mrs Davies, put a question to the Chair of Policy, Resources and Economic Development Committee:

 

I’m sure you like all of us are getting many complaints about the parking in the High Street.  I know that planters have been put in place and they look very nice but unfortunately it is not actually solving the problem and we have got to the stage where we have double banking parking in areas.  What is concerning me is Chief Inspector Paul Ballard has confirmed that they do not have any capacity to enforce against illegal parking on the High Street unless it was for really life threatening situations and the responsibility does fall to this Council and SEPP.  Please can we be assured that there will be an increase in presence of parking enforcement in the High Street and that is throughout the day and every day.  At the moment, I’m afraid that an awful amount of the public are treating it like a free car park and they have no regard to life and limb and particularly the safety of children. 

 

Cllr Hossack, Chair of Policy, Resources & Economic Development Committee responded:

 

The issue of pavement parking in the High Street is not going away easily and what we are doing  is throwing everything we can at it with the legislation that we have got.  As you have seen we agreed at a Committee to put in a series of planters as a trial – we have extended that trial and Essex are asking us to apply for licenses to extend the trial.  Where we have put hem in it does fix a problem.  But, there are still people who will find a way to go thrown the gaps in the process and as soon as we enforce and walk through the High Street.  As soon as the officer moves on to another location, it backfills immediately.  We are issuing circa 200 tickets a month in the High Street and Town Centre alone.  We have had many discussion about it not being a deterrent - £30 is not a deterrent to some and they frankly do not care.  In terms of the effort going in to it, it is significant to issue that umber of tickets and we do patrol daily.  SEPP and our own officers receive regular abuse and harassment.  I wrote to District Commander Ballard as I received a letter from one of the businesses on Willsons Corner about this pavement parking issue.  What the Police do is take the view that even if there are 4 wheels on the pavement, as long as you can get a pram or wheelchair passed it, then it is not blocking and they will not do anything about it.  I think this is completely unacceptable.  The rules just across the boundary in Havering look at this differently and this is being reviewed at the moment.  I have asked District Commander Ballard to see how we can encourage the police to take a zero tolerance approach to this.  I have asked for a meeting to push a zero tolerance approach and I want the Police to back up SEPP and our own enforcement officers.  This is a tough environment but what counts against us is the value of the fine and the Polices approach with he disparity between Home Counties and London Boroughs.  The big perpetrators in this are the fast food delivery drivers and we have had a number of meetings on this.  We have spoken to Directors at Deliveroo and if there are constant offenders (by badge number) and are asking for firmer punishments.  We are building good relations with the fast food delivery companies.  We are doing what we can within the scope we have but this is not an easy issue to fix. 

 

Cllr Mynott, put a question to the Chair of Planning & Licensing Committee:

 

Following on from Cllr Dr Barrett’s written question earlier, doesn’t the Chair of Planning & Licensing think this could be seen to be part of the wider pattern of planning failures which are:

·         Administrative error caused a problem in relation to 59 Crown Street.

·         You had a situation last year where the appeals allowed on 11^th May 2021 - we had a major item come to the Council, Ingatestone Garden Centre, officers took an opinion on it but the applicant got exactly what they wanted because he Council failed to determine that within a correct period. 

·         There was a significant issue more recently in Brentwood North with problems with miscommunication leading to the fact that the item, Brooks House, did not come to Planning Committee because we were miscommunicated with by officers. 

And then there has also been issues with Waterworks Spring – I wont go into that any further.  I think that is a pattern of problems and I think it comes from under resourcing and I wonder whether the Chair of Planning thinks that’s true?

 

Cllr Bridge, Chair of Planning & Licensing Committee responded:

 

Specifically on Brooks House – that is in a second phase complaint stage at this point – it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment. 

 

With regards to Ingatestone Garden Centre – no I don’t think there is a pattern the situation was straightforward.  That was a submission that had been made in advance of the LDP.  The background to this one is that officers were reminded not to make a decision and wanted to hold off making a decision until the LDP had been authorised when they would feel comfortable approving it.  The applicant felt differently and when he went to the Inspector, the Inspector the appeal went for non-determination which summed up as you are giving them permission so stop taking time.  That was partly down to the appropriateness during the LDP stages as we hadn’t adopted the LDP at that point. 

 

With regards to the other 2 cases, no I don’t believe that is correct in either case.  I think errors do happen and do not think there is a pattern but we will continue to look at this and see where we are going.  I think if you look at our pattern on appeals, we are not doing too badly.  On balance, we are heading in the right direction. 

 

Cllr Mynott, put a question to the Leader of the Council:

 

In relation to errors of the Council, a major umbrella organisation, one of our outside bodies, was supposed to have it AGM in this Chamber this evening which was booked.  Somehow, this room was double booked but that outside organisation was not communicated with until earlier this week.  Does this look like a Council which is running properly?

 

Cllr Hossack, Leader of the Council responded:

 

I wasn’t aware that the Arts Council were due to be in here and were communicated late.   Officers deal with administration and communication relating to the hiring of Council faacilities.  A member would not get involved in that.  We are human and have busy diaries and meetings and appointments have to move.  If this was communicated late then we should apologise.  However we have rectified this and moved them to a location just 200 yards from this building. You can look at this however you like but this does not mean that the administration is about to crumble it just means that somebody possibly made an error.  This does not mean it is the end of this administration and running of the Council.  On balance, we are delivering lots of things on a strategic level but occasionally we drop the ball and that’s what seems to have happened here and there is nothing more to look into than that.  I would ask, that we should apologise to the Arts Council for any inconvenient caused.   We also had to move some meetings this month due to road works taking place outside of the Town Hall and I apologise for this inconvenience.

 

*Cllr Mynott expressed this is his opinion and not that of the Arts Council.   

 

Cllr Cloke, put a question to the Chair of Community, Environment & Enforcement Committee:

 

We have been enjoying the new facilities at King Georges Playing Fields, but we are disappointed to see things are still not finished.  There’s bits of scrublands, there’s a broken gate in the children’s play area, a broken see-saw that has been for a few weeks or months, various half-finished items.  When is King Georges Playing Fields going to be finished?

 

Cllr Russell, Chair of Community, Environment & Enforcement Committee responded:

 

I haven’t got an exact timeline but I believe by the end of this month all those things will be in order.

 

Cllr White, put a question to the Chair of Community, Environment & Enforcement Committee:

 

Further to the presentation that was made at the Community, Environment & Enforcement Committee on 20^th June 2022, with an update to the Councils commitment to the Parking Strategy in relation to EV chargers, I wonder if the Chair could give us a brief update on what the commitment is and going forward in terms of timings, location and spaces available to promote the role out of this strategy. 

 

Cllr Russell, Chair of Community, Environment & Enforcement Committee responded:

 

There will be 47 EV charging points over the next 15 months initially focused on two sites: Chatham Way Car Park and King Georges Playing Fields.  The target installation date is 16 EV chargers on these sites by December of this year.  There is procurement at Hunters Avenue, Friars Avenue, Market Place and Bell Mead will commence in September of this year with a target installation of 10 charges between April - June 2023.  Following that, procurement for the Multi Storey Car Park and the Brentwood Centre will commence January – February 2023 with delivery of 29 chargers expected September/October 2023.  In order to stick to the time line, I have requested an update on the progress of the delivery of this project to be brought to CEE Committee throughout the remainder of this year. 

 

Cllr Naylor, put a question to the Chair of Community, Environment & Enforcement Committee:

 

I have looked at Crown Purchasing Commercial System and I believe  that procurement exercise that we went for was Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Solutions agreement RM6213.  I noticed there are 9 steps to the buyers journey.  What step did the procurement exercise fail?  It also mentioned legal advice had been taken and the decision was made in April to abandon the exercise – what was the context of this advice – did we arrange any contracts – and what was the cost of this legal advice to the Council?

 

Cllr Russell, Chair of Community, Environment & Enforcement Committee responded:

 

A lot of detail in that question.  I would be inclined to hand that over to Greg Campbell to answer but I will state that whilst there are ongoing discussions, there might be some sensitivity. 

 

Greg Campbell, Corporate Director - Environment and Community responded:

 

I don’t have the detail of how much that costs us in legal costs at the moment.  It was leading up to the decision in April that we had discussions and we had advice from legal and it was that process we had the interviews with the companies who had applied for it and took some legal advice and it was deemed outside of the framework – the exact date I could find out but there was an exchanges in discussion to try and work a way round it but we couldn’t.