Agenda item

Councillor P L Spenceley advised that she had been asked to raise a question to the Leader of the Council on behalf of Councillor U G C Siddall-Norman who was unable to attend the meeting. She referred to amendments to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill tabled by Caroline Dinenage MP (Member of Parliament) which were being backed by a cross party of MPs including Mary Glinden and Dr Danny Chambers. The amendments related to:

·                the secretary of state conducting a review into the prevalence of the contaminated e-liquid from Vapes in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

·                To place a ban on the supply of plastic cigarette filters.

Councillor Spenceley advised that according to Councillor Siddall-Norman it had been found that on average 6,000 cigarette butts were put into landfill every day by all district councils in our country. It was a concern regarding what was going into landfill and with this in mind she asked the Leader if the Council could ask its MP Sir John Whittingdale to write a letter in support of this bill. In response the Leader of the Council advised that he would request Officers to write to both of the Council’s MPs (Dame Priti Patel and Sir John Whittingdale) asking them to support the amendment to the bill to try and prevent this from happening in the future.

Councillor A S Fluker referred to work of the Car Park Task and Finish Working Group and the proposed policy change to introduce car parking charges in Burnham-on-Crouch. He commented that when the Working Group recommendations were brought forward to Committee Members of the Working Group had not supported the policy or the recommendations leaving the officer presenting the report in a difficult position. He asked the Leader of the Council if he agreed with him that, given the circumstances, the Members should apologise to the officer concerned and the Council for wasting resources. The Leader of the Council thanked Councillor Fluker for his question and provided some further information regarding the debate of this matter at the Committee meeting. If any officer was put in a difficult position he apologised on behalf of Members. He advised that in the future better awareness of the process of reporting from a Working Group to a Committee or the Council was required.

Councillor P L Spenceley referred to the Boundary Commission pausing its work and how this left Parish Councils, particularly her own Parish of Heybridge, in a terrible position. She gave an example of the North Heybridge Garden Suburb and how with the current boundaries 60% of this was in Great Totham who as a result would receive the related precept. Councillor Spenceley spoke of Heybridge West ward being the most deprived Ward in the Maldon District and how the Parish did not have the funds to serve its community. She referred to the need for the Parish Council to request a Community Governance review and asked the Leader if he would give assurance that Heybridge Parish Council would not be left when this Council potentially ceased to exist. She also asked the Leader to support her in her call for a Community Governance Review for the parish boundaries of Heybridge. In response, the Leader of the Council referred to the law in terms of Parish and boundary reviews and how every parish should have a parish review every 14 years. He gave an example of Little Totham and the work it had done to undertake a parish review. The Leader hoped that the Chief Executive and Lead Legal Specialist would expediate a parish review in terms of the boundaries between Heybridge and Great Totham. At this point the Leader advised that any Parishes that had not had a review in 14 years should request one.

Councillor Fluker commented that the Council had not consulted with the public over the Leisure Contract and that Members had chosen not to consult with the medical center or local businesses in respect of car parking charges at Burnham-on-Crouch. He asked the Leader of the Council if he would ensure that such consultations took place from now on. In response, the Leader explained that the difficulty with the Leisure Contract related to timing of the consultation when a private and confidential contract was being negotiated. In respect of the car parking at Burnham-on-Crouch it was difficult to determine at what point a consultation on such matters should take place. He commented that although it was not his role as Leader to create consultations, he was always open to communication from residents would support and raise things on their behalf.

Councillor K M H Lagan asked the Leader of the Council if he agreed with him that thanks and acknowledgement should be given for seeking the contribution of the public consultation with regards to the Promenade Park Management Plan. He referred to QR codes which had been put up around the Promenade Park asking people to ‘have their say’. In response the Leader of the Council agreed with Councillor Lagan.

Councillor A S Fluker asked the Leader of the Council if he agreed that if a Vice-Chairperson of a programme Committee was unable to answer a question at a Council meeting and agreed to provide a written response that this should be done in a timely matter and in any event within five days. In response the Leader advised that some flexibility had to be given as there could at times be circumstances which might prevent this.