Agenda item

To consider any questions submitted by Members of the Council, in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11 (b).

In accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11, 4 question had been submitted by the required deadline set out in the Constitution.

(A)  Legal Advice Received on the Waste Contract Award

Councillor Ralph Muncer to Councillor Daniel Allen, Leader of the Council.

(B)  Local Authority Flex Collect Scheme Rollout

Councillor Joe Graziano to Councillor Dave Winstanley, Executive Member for Housing and Environmental Health.

(C)  Electric Vehicle Chargers in North Hertfordshire

Councillor Ralph Muncer to Councillor Chris Hinchliff, Executive Member for Planning and Transport.

(D)  Planning Control Committee Agenda Management

Councillor Ruth Brown to Councillor Elizabeth Dennis, Chair of Planning Control Committee.

Audio recording – 31 minutes 29 seconds

N.B Councillor Steven Patmore left the Chamber at 20:15 and returned at 20:18.

In accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11, four questions had been submitted by the required deadline set out in the Constitution.

(A)  Legal Advice Received on the Waste Contract Award

Councillor Ralph Muncer to Councillor Daniel Allen, Leader of the Council:

‘What legal advice has been given to this authority regarding the new Waste Contract, specifically the conflict of a three weekly residual waste collection with the draft Statutory Guidance on the Collection of Waste from Households October 2023 which is proposed to be made under Section 45AZE of the Environmental Protection Act 1990?’

Councillor Daniel Allen provided the following response:

‘North and East Herts Councils received detailed legal advice from Sharp Pritchard regarding the draft statutory guidance to support the Council’s decision making progress. The advice was provided as an appendix to the Part 2 report to both the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet’.

Councillor Ralph Muncer asked a supplementary question, as follows:

‘Does the Leader of the Council agree that by implementing a three weekly bin collection of residual waste, not only is this authority going against that statutory guidance and industry best practice, but it will impose upon our residents a worse service compared to that which they currently receive?’

Councillor Daniel Allen responded:

‘The Cabinet had regard for the draft statutory guidance in Appendix 6 and had taken that into account, the matters were set out in the part two report, there were reconfirmed the decision on the three-weekly collection. One thing I would say as you have mentioned ‘smelly waste’, which is a phrase that I hate and was given to us by the outgoing Government, households with ‘smelly waste’ would be allowed the opportunity for more frequent collections, if entitled. Other than that Councillor Muncer you have seen all the reasoning and it is all available to you’.

(B)  Local Authority Flex Collect Scheme Rollout

Councillor Joe Graziano to Councillor Dave Winstanley, Executive Member for Housing and Environmental Health:

‘Why is this authority unable to offer the full benefits of the ECO4 Plus LA Flex Scheme unlike other local authorities in the region including Watford Borough Council and Luton Borough Council?’

Councillor Dave Winstanley gave a response as follows:

‘Just a bit of background, ECO 4 is an acronym of Energy Company Obligation and it is an initiative where energy companies fund energy efficiency upgrades to qualifying private homes, the qualification criteria relates to low income or otherwise vulnerable households, homeowners. Under ECO 4,  there is no Local Authority involvement, homeowners apply directly for that. Now ECO 4 Flex which is what the question relates to is an additional optional element which Local Authorities may choose to administer, the Local Authority can declare additional households as eligible for the funding, provided they meet the criteria under Eco 4. Now last year this Council instigated the setting up of an ECO 4 Flex scheme by partnering with an energy company, unfortunately however progress has stalled on this, Council resource constraints have also meant the capacity to investigate alternative options for a scheme have been severely limited. However, in recent weeks a potential alternative route has been found with the national energy foundation and we are hopeful that this can be progressed in the coming weeks so that a scheme can be set up’.

(C)  Electric Vehicle Chargers in North Hertfordshire

Councillor Ralph Muncer to Councillor Daniel Allen, interim Executive Member for Planning and Transport:

‘What plans does the Council have to increase the number of Electric Vehicle Chargers in North Hertfordshire?’

Councillor Daniel Allen gave a response as follows:

‘North Herts Council Officers procured an EV Charge Point operator Blink Charging under a concession contract in 2023 to deliver and install 36 new sockets over 18 new EV charge points in car park across the four towns in Letchworth this would be at Hillshott car park, Hitchin in Bancroft Recreation and Woodside car parks, Baldock in the Twitchell car park and Royston in the Warren car park. The contract is at no cost to the Council, it will be funded entirely by the charge point operator and a £135,000 capital grant fund from the Office of Zero Emission Vehicles which was awards in September 2023. It is a requirement form the OZEV the Office for Zero Emission Vehicles grant that the EV Charge points must be available to residents without off street parking, each of the above mentioned car park are in Council ownership and the location chosen for the EV Charge points are within reasonable walking distance of residential properties located within an in close proximity to the town centres.

The concession contract also includes the replacement of the existing publicly accessible Genie Point charge point which are now 10 years old, and there are in the following Council car parks, the Lairage multi-storey car park in Hitchin and Woodside, the Garden Square multi-storey car park in Letchworth, the Twitchell car park in Baldock and the Civic Centre Town Hall car park in Royston. The contract also includes replacing two charge points for the Council fleet vehicles in the Garden Square multi-storey car park, and the provision of four new EV fleet vehicle charge points in the Lairage multi-storey car park. Officers have been working to finalise the contract with Blink Charging to install, manage and maintain the new and replacement charge points and it is near completion with expected roll out of the charge points starting in the Autumn with completion before March 2025 in order to comply with the requirements of the OZEV grant. Officers are working with the Communications team regarding full publicity over the installation of the new and replacement EV Charge points and I thank you for helping with that publicity.’

Councillor Ralph Muncer asked a supplementary question, as follows:

‘What is Council doing in order to increase the number of EV charges in our rural communities such as Codicote and Kimpton?’

Councillor Daniel Allen responded:

‘I can give you a basic answer Councillor Muncer but, obviously having recently stepped into this position, I will give you a more in depth one, but the basic answer I can say is that we are working with Hertfordshire County Council, they have prepared and are adopting a county wide electric vehicle charging infrastructure strategy, one of the bug things to do with that are procuring suppliers to deliver EV charge points across the county and especially working for funding for, in 25 location within North Herts including outer urban locations, so that is something that is coming and I will give you a full answer very soon.’

(D)  Planning Control Committee Agenda Management

Councillor Ruth Brown to Councillor Elizabeth Dennis, Chair of the Planning Control Committee:

‘As Chair of the Planning Control Committee, what measures will you put in place, to prevent a repeat of the debacle of 13 June when the meeting ran on until 1am, in order to ensure that all future agenda items, including complex and contentious applications, such as the Bygrave solar farm, receive the proper consideration they deserve, with the guarantee of fair and robust decision-making?’

Councillor Elizabeth Dennis gave a response as follows:

‘I am sorry that Councillor Brown feels that the Planning Committee meeting of the 13 June was a debacle or that there was an inadequate level of scrutiny, in fact I think the Members of the Committee did an excellent job scrutinising the multiple applications  - that a lot of them were quite complex that particular evening and we also received some very positive feedback both from residents and applicants in respect of the Committees work that night, so I apologise again to Councillor Brown if she feels the Committee meeting was a debacle that evening but I don’t think that our communities or those that we serve would necessarily agree in that regard however, turning to forward planning as Councillor Brown is aware I contacted all permanent Members and Substitutes of the Planning Control Committee to ask for their view in respect of manging workloads, the flex that we could perhaps exercise with the Committee in terms of its start time and various other options. To date I have only received five responses to my request for feedback from Members, in order to help shape the Planning Control Committee in a way that is going to serve the residents of this district and facilitate all Members of the Committee to play as full a role as possible.

So those of you who have not responded to my email, you know who you are, please get back to me so that we can help make the Planning Control Committee a really great place and ensure that the robust decision making that did occur on the 13 June is able to carry forward and that we do not have to keep running meetings on late. I am also regularly receiving updates from our lead Planning Officer, sometimes weekly on the pipeline of work that is coming through to the Planning Control Committee, and what we do is we go through and  check the deadlines for commercial applications and when they need to be heard at Committee as well as balancing the contentious applications and seeing where there is flex in the system in order to meet timelines and also deliver robust Committee scrutiny. That work will absolutely be ongoing to make sure that those agendas are manageable. In respect of the Bygrave Solar Farm I did specifically ask if the applicant would be happy to hold the application until a later meeting, especially bearing in mind the general election and that the application itself was likely to be politically contentious, the applicant was not minded to do so, it needed to be herd in terms of its commercial timelines so it went to that particular Committee, had we been able to move that to the subsequent Committee meeting, I think that we would have finished at a more sociable time. Ultimately the challenge that the Planning Committee faces is the massive amount of work that is coming our way, not just from items Members might be calling in because they have concerns or their residents are concerned but just the sheer volume that needs to be considered and decided at Planning Committee, so even after doubling up the number of meeting we have each year we still struggle to fit them in and having a meeting start at 7:30pm in the evening really does mean that unfortunately colleagues that we will run on quite late, other Councils meet during the daytime, look around the room the make up of this Council is such that I think some Councillors would struggle with daytime Planning meetings. So to all the five members that have responded to my request for feedback and suggestions to improve the Committee, thank you so much, again to those of you that have not please get back to me because as Councillor Brown has indicated I think there is a spot in the evening where effective decision making becomes more challenging and I need your feedback and participation so we can shape this to be a Committee that is really going to serve everyone’s best interests.’

Councillor Ruth Brown asked a supplementary question, as follows:

‘How does the Committee Chair propose to ensure that Committees time is used properly in future and not wasted by Members calling in items for spurious reasons?’

Councillor Elizabeth Dennis responded:

‘So when  Members askto call in items, I discuss that with the Planning Officers and also with those Members involved, it may be that the Committee agreed with the Officers recommendations in respect of the two applications in Baldock that were heard at the following Planning Committee however, looking at the emerging National Policy that is coming through under this new government as well as having regard to out emerging policies and points within the NPPF on review I felt that it was appropriate for the Committee to consider whether or not is was in the public interest to reduce the amount of commercially viable space in one of our town centres and it is the role of the Committee to scrutinise and apply our local policies to the report and the decisions Officers are asking us to make so I do not think that, that was a waste of time and as I indicated had I been able to move some of the applications that were heard at the Committee meeting the previous week I absolutely would have some in order to balance the time that was spent across both of those meetings rather than as having a meeting that ran on to 1am the previous week. Not every item that a Member has to be called in, is relevant or carries a public interest argument with it, and I think that is the role of discretion in, when we are setting our agendas and we need to remember that while our Officers do provide us very good very high quality professional advice they are not always right and it is best sometimes for decisions to be scrutinised in public, rather than just being dealt with by a delegated decision.’