Meeting documents

To approve the minutes of the Services Overview Committee meetings held on 20 February 2019 and 15 May 2019.

The minutes of the Services Overview Committee meetings held on 20 February 2019 and 15 May 2019 were approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record. 

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive an update from Thames Water and other relevant representatives on flood prevention/matters and future challenges within the District.

Thames Water

Members received a presentation from Thames Water representatives, Mr Huw Thomas, Local and Regional Government Liaison Officer and Ms Dagmara Weatherall, Infrastructure Planning Manager on the waste network arrangements and infrastructure in the Chiltern District. The presentation covered the following and can be viewed appended to these minutes:

• An overview of the Thames Valley sewerage network responsibilities.
• Drainage Strategies which had included detailed investigations that helped with the understanding of drainage problems in Chalfont St Peter (Maple Lodge) and Chesham and how they may be improved.
• An overview of the Maple Lodge sewer treatment works which served a population of 495,000 and had a typical daily treated flow of 100,000 cubed metres, this could rise to in excess of 250,000 cubed metres during wet periods.
• Proposed improvements including sewer repairs with watertight lining; new monitors at some local sewage pumping stations to identify when pumps are operating more than expected; groundwater levels being monitored in the control centre with response teams informed if thresholds passed; and to investigate if roof drainage can be separated from our sewer network.
• How proposed local plan growth and other key growth challenges in the region would be dealt with. Developers were being encouraged to contact Thames Water in advance of submission of planning applications. Customer relationship managers were proactively seeking out site developers and working to meet developers, promoters and agents for large development sites at an early stage of the planning process.
• Once a site identified as a risk to the wastewater network had been approved for planning, an impact assessment would be undertaken to identify if there was detriment to the network. Where certainty of growth from other sites was also known then a strategic scheme would be developed.
• Drainage and Wastewater Management Plans - these were the most extensive, collaborative and forward-looking plans developed within the UK wastewater industry to date. A framework was published in September 2018, this consisted of Water and wastewater companies; Defra; Environment Agency; Ofwat; Consumer Council for Water and; the National Infrastructure Commission.
• Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) which were an opportunity to remove local impermeable area that would normally contribute to surface water run-off. £150,000 would be made available to all boroughs in the region for the installation of surface water management.

The Committee recorded its thanks to Mr Thomas and Ms Weatherall for the presentation. Questions from Members were welcomed, and the following key points were made:

It was affirmed to the Committee that developers were being encouraged to make use of the free pre-planning enquiry process, following which they would receive a letter outlining whether there was sufficient capacity in the existing network or whether investment was needed. Thames Water was consulted on and made recommendations to the local Planning authority on all significant developments.

Impact assessments would be completed once planning approval for developments had been completed. When these had concluded it would be known how large the solution would need to be and whether existing networks could handle the additional  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

The Committee received the 28-Day Notice of executive decisions to be made by Cabinet on 9 July 2019.

RESOLVED:

That the 28 Day Notice be noted.

The Committee is asked to consider and comment on the attached Cabinet report.

The Committee received a report which outlined the annual performance of Council services against pre-agreed performance indicators and service objectives for the end of year, 2018-19.

RESOLVED:

That the performance reports be noted.

The Committee is asked to consider and comment on the attached Cabinet report.

The Committee received a report which recommended that the Council supported and signed the Motor Neurone Disease (MND) Charter which recognised and respected the rights of people with MND. This would result in the Council ensuring policies and procedures enabled people with MND to receive a rapid response to their needs and good quality care and support.

It was recognised that the Council was already actively finding ways to support those people with Motor Neurone Disease as well as those living with other disabilities. Members agreed that no one should be disadvantaged because of a disability and supported the signing of the MND Charter.

The Committee is asked to consider and comment on the attached Cabinet report.

The Committee received a report which asked that Cabinet consider the closure of recycling centre sites within the Chiltern District. At its meeting in November 2018, the Committee agreed with the rationale presented but highlighted specific concerns and requested a further report be presented which provided clarity on these issues.

The appendix attached to the report outlined results from surveys carried out at recycling centres by officers over a one week period between 13 and 17 May 2019. It was summarised that for most users it was a choice to use the centres and that whilst they had recycling facilities at home, many were unaware of the Council’s kerbside collection service. From this, officers agreed that kerbside collection methods would be looked at to promote the service further.

A detailed discussion followed and members raised a number of concerns. These included:

• A Member noted that the sites continued to be heavily used and the potential removal of recycling centres could lead to an increase in fly tipping.
• The charging structure recently introduced by the County Council for household recycling centres was already being misunderstood by many residents and removing facilities at this time could cause increased confusion.
• Many Members believed that the recycling centres should not be removed until residents had been educated on the kerbside collection service and until this service was promoted more widely, the centres should be kept. A member suggested a three month period be set aside to educate residents, following which the closure of the centres could be re-assessed. 
• Refuse operatives needed to be fully coherent with collection policies as there had been issues reported where recycling had not been collected when placed under or on top of a recycling bin.
• Many properties in areas such as the High Street, Great Missenden had no frontage and small storage areas so further consideration would be needed for kerbside collection, such as very early collections.
• A Member suggested that given the high level of usage, and lack of public education the recycling centres should remain until the end of the Council’s existence (31 March 2020), whilst an education programme was undertaken. The new Buckinghamshire Council could then make the decision on the closure of the centres.
• A Member recognised that using recycling centres had become a habit for many residents and all should be educated to use the kerbside collection service as soon as possible, so that savings can be made by closing the recycling centres.
• It was likely that the new joint waste contract would not have provision for these facilities in order to make efficiency savings so publicity of centre closure and promoting the kerbside collection service was recognised as being key.

The Head of Environment noted that 400,000 container collections were made per week and the Council was providing this service as best it could, this included the collections from recycling centre sites. The Committee was advised that these centres were introduced at a time when there was not a kerbside collection service  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

The Committee received a report for information on new statutory guidance on overview and scrutiny in local authorities produced by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. This guidance aimed to increase understanding of the purpose of scrutiny, what effective scrutiny looks like, how to conduct it and the benefits it could bring. This guidance would need to be taken into account when designing the overview and scrutiny arrangements for the new unitary District Council.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

The Committee considered a report which provided an update on the receipt and expenditure of Section 106 Affordable Housing Contributions in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning document.

Point 3.3 of the report included a table which summarised actual and committed expenditure to date. It was proposed that the Council enter into a strategic funding agreement with Paradigm Housing whereby Paradigm commits to delivering 28 affordable rented homes across a range of sites that it was bringing forward in the Chiltern District in return for a funding commitment of £1,000,000 from the Council. This equated to £35,000 per unit and would allow Paradigm to operate flexibly by bringing forward sites and properties for funding as and when developments were ready to proceed.

The overall revised Committed Expenditure Programme would then look as set out in the table at point 3.11 of the report.

It was highlighted that were any properties to be sold within 10 years of completion, the funding provided for that property would be repaid to the Council on a sliding scale. These funds would return to the section 106 pot in line with similar processes at other local authorities.

A Member raised concern that by turning garage sites in to residences, street parking pressure would increase. It was explained that garage sites were a valuable land resource and many of those being rented were often being used for storage rather than keeping vehicles. Any application would go through the appropriate planning process.