ENVIRONMENT & NON-EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 1st May 2008 at 6.00 p.m. PRESENT: Councillor Ireland (Chair); Councillors Ayub, Mead, Riaz, Smith, Taylor and Timoney. IN ATTENDANCE: Councillors R J Davis, Dolling, Neale and Rutstein 25 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (REF: 1) Apologies for absence from the meeting were received on behalf of Councillors Garrett and Strange. 26 MINUTES (REF: 2.1) Resolved: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3rd April 2008 be taken as read, approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 27 REVIEW ELECTORAL SERVICES AND BEST PRACTICE SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM (REF: 9) Representatives of Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council explained that an election pilot was set up in 2003 with no polling stations. Electors could choose whether they voted by post, telephone, internet, digital with collection of postal papers from OAP and nursing homes. All electors were verified with a PIN and VIN. Other innovations included no declarations of interest. The register was marked each day for ease of canvassers, so they knew on a daily basis which of the electorate to canvass. All ballot papers were bar coded and scanned in, electors did not have to fill in any identification material. This procedure would not be permitted under the new regulations. It became apparent that some people still wanted the opportunity of voting at polling stations. In the 2006 election pilot the following initiatives were undertaken:- • Early voting • Use of technology at early voting stations • Printing ballot paper at source • On line check for postal voters • No stamping instrument – ballot paper under printing • No counterfoil – ballot paper listing • Bar coded ballot paper • Candidate’s names on poll cards • Postal votes scanned on return • Postal voting statement not requiring witness statement. • Marked copy of postal vote register after the election – bar coding – ballot paper and IT. A polling station was set up in the Darwin Shopping Centre that proved popular with voters. The feedback from the public was positive:- • 96% found location ‘very convenient’ • 97.5% found opening times very convenient. • 98.5% found voting arrangements ‘very convenient’ • 36% said they ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ would not have voted if they had not been able to vote early. A Member stated that electronic voting could be subject to fraud and the safest method was paper, but the Authority had proved electronic voting can be achieved. The representative from Shrewsbury and Atcham replied that the security required by the Ministry of Justice was very high. Hackers were employed to ensure that they could not get into the system. Internet voters were required to give their date of birth and signature in line with the legal requirements of postal votes. Resolved: That the representatives from Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council be thanked for their attendance and giving an interesting presentation. (Note: (i) (Councillor Ireland disclosed a personal and prejudicial interest in the above item, in that she was married to the Electoral Services Manager and left the room during consideration of the item. (ii) In the absence of the Chair, the Vice Councillor Riaz took the Chair for the above item only.) 28 CALLED IN DECISION – LUTON AND SOUTH BEDFORDSHIRE DRAFT GREEN SPACE STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN (REF: 10) The Committee was advised that Councillors Franks and Neale had ‘called in’ decision EX/52/08 of the Executive taken on 25th March 2008 on the Luton and South Bedfordshire Draft Green Space Strategy and Action Plan. The Executive on 25th March 2008 had considered a report of the Director of Environment and Regeneration – Luton and South Bedfordshire Draft Green Space Strategy that had been discussed at the Luton and South Bedfordshire Joint Planning Committee. Councillor Neale explained that the decision had been called in by himself and Councillor Franks as it was felt that there was insufficient information on the advantages for Luton and that this strategy would determine planning and development control for years to come. Councillor Neale was of the opinion that before the Draft Green Space Strategy was adopted by the Luton and South Bedfordshire Joint Planning Committee in June it required scrutinising by this Committee to ensure it was fit for purpose for the people of Luton. The Chair pointed out that the Luton and South Bedfordshire Joint Planning Committee consisted of a cross section of Members on the Committee and that the Chair of that Committee was the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration. She considered that all Members of the Joint Committee would have considered that the strategy was fit for purpose for the people of Luton. The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration explained that the Joint Committee had been delegated this work to consult on the Luton and South Bedfordshire Draft Green Space Strategy and Action Plan under the formation of an independent Section 29 Committee. The consultation period had expired on 11th April 2008 if Members of the Council had any concerns on the strategy they should have recorded their opinions at the consultation stage. The matter was still to be determined by the Luton and South Bedfordshire Joint Planning Committee at its next meeting in June 2008. This was not an Executive function. Members of the Joint Committee incorporated everyone’s views and were outside the remit of Luton Borough Council in strictest terms. The Head of Regeneration reiterated that decisions on the Luton and South Bedfordshire Draft Green Space Strategy had been delegated to the Luton and South Bedfordshire Joint Planning Committee to consider. The consultation on the Draft Green Space Strategy had been extensive with 1,300 responses received that included telephone enquiries. The Action Plan would be discussed further and the implementation plan would take several months of work to complete. Resolved: That in relation to the Executive decision (EX/52/08) taken on 25th March 2008, the Environment and Non-Executive Functions Scrutiny Committee had no objection to the called-in decision being implemented. 29 REPORT ON THE REFERENCE FROM PERFORMANCE, RESOURCES & ASSETS SCRUTINY – RE PI ON PROCESS OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS (REF: 11) The Head of Planning reported that the handling of planning applications had declined. To address this decline the Head of Planning who had recently undertaken his role was in the process of preparing an improvement plan for Development Control. It was anticipated that from June onwards the figures should steadily improve. Problems had been experienced with staff recruitment and retention in development control. To overcome this situation the salaries of 3 posts had recently been increased along with recruitment and retention packages in order to become competitive in the wider market. The aim of the Head of Planning was to ensure that the Development Control service recovered sufficiently to deliver at least second quartile by the end of the year. By 2009/10 the service was aiming to achieve the top quartile. Members requested that the Head of Planning monitored the progress made within the service once the extra resources and staffing were in place and report back to the Committee the progress achieved in 6 months time. Resolved: (i) That the report (Ref: 11) be noted. (ii) That the Head of Planning report back on the progress achieved in the Development Control section in six months. (iii) That Performance, Resources and Assets Scrutiny Committee be informed of the actions being taken to improve performance in determining planning applications. 30 CONSULTATION BY NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO AIRSPACE WITHIN TERMINAL CONTROL NORTH (REF: 12) The Airport Planning Officer submitted a report on the proposed changes to Terminal Control North Airspace Consultation by National Air Traffic Services (NATS). NATS had undertaken a consultation exercise of all local authorities, stakeholders and interested groups within an area of the most congested airspace this included London Luton, Heathrow, Stansted and London City as well as 59 smaller airfields. This area of airspace was known as Terminal Control North (TCN). The consultation document was published on 21st February 2008 and the period for comments closes on 22nd May 2008. NATS intend to publish the outcome of the consultation exercise on 22nd June 2008. Members of the Committee considered that Executive, Members of Luton and South Bedfordshire Joint Planning Committee and the MPs should be requested that NATS reconsiders the proposals. Luton wanted to be a good neighbour for the growth area which included Luton, Dunstable, Houghton Regis, Leighton, Linslade and west of Stevenage. The new growth area had not been taken into consideration by NATS. Members were also of the opinion that the consultation period was too short. The impact of implementation on the people of Luton was wide ranging and detrimental for residents in the Farley and South areas of Luton being seriously affected by aircraft noise. It was estimated that currently 300 properties were affected by aircraft noise and that would increase to 2,000 if the proposals by NATS were adopted. Councillor Dolling, in attendance commented that members of the public affected by these changes could request that the Council assisted with the cost of insulation to their homes to alleviate the increased noise. Members recommended that should these changes be implemented NATS would be requested to advise the Council of the likelihood of any compensation that would be available to residents as the Council had strongly objected to their proposals. All Members acknowledged the safety implications but totally objected to the proposed route as it affected several thousand people. Resolved: (i) Whilst acknowledging any safety implications Executive is strongly recommended to object to the proposed route changes for the following reasons:- (ii) It is considered that these changes will have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of residents of South Luton and Farley in terms of noise and air quality.