Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Leader of the Council made a short address to remind all present that the meeting would be broadcast on the Internet, and that the Council had adopted a protocol for the webcasting of its meetings.

(Director of Governance) To declare interests in any item on this agenda.

There were no declarations of interest pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Cabinet held on 13 April 2015 (previously circulated).

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 April 2015 be taken as read and signed by the Leader of the Council as a correct record.

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 April 2015 be taken as read and signed by the Leader of the Council as a correct record.

To receive verbal reports from Portfolio Holders on current issues concerning their Portfolios, which are not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

Environment

The Environment Portfolio Holder made the following statement concerning the waste collection service operated in the District by Biffa Municipal Limited:

“I’m grateful for this opportunity to update the Cabinet, Members and residents on the latest situation with the waste, recycling and street cleansing services, delivered by our contractor, Biffa.

I’d like to begin by making it clear that I consider Biffa’s failure to deliver a universally acceptable service, of the standard we require and our residents expect, to be extremely serious. I share the very real anger and frustration of all those who Biffa have let down, and especially those who have suffered repeated missed collections. I want to reiterate my sincere apologies to all those affected, and assure them that I and the Council’s Officers are doing all in our power to compel Biffa to urgently resolve these problems. My statement this evening is not, therefore, a defence of this situation. Rather, it is an account of what has happened and what is being done to correct it.

I’d like to briefly remind the Cabinet of the procurement exercise that led to the appointment of Biffa.

The previous waste management contract expired in November last year. In March 2013 we began the procurement process by means of Competitive Dialogue, with initially eight bidders, which was reduced to 4 by the time we reached the final stage. In the early stages of the exercise the tender assessment criteria was based 60% on price and 40% on quality, but at the final stage this was changed to 50% for both price and quality, to reflect and emphasise this Council’s focus on quality. The 50% awarded for quality was subdivided into 40% for a technical assessment by Officers and 10% for a Member interview panel.

The procurement process was led by a project team that consisted of Officers from this Council and representatives from Essex County Council and the Council’s specialist consultants, WYG Environmental Limited. Key elements of the assessment process included considering company structure; company finances and insurances; the ability to deliver the services being tendered; health and safety; equalities, and business continuity.

At the Final Tender stage the Council asked the 4 remaining contractors to bid on 2 service levels – a Monday to Friday service and a Tuesday to Friday service – and agreed that the lowest priced submission for each of these would be considered for assessment. The highest scoring tender bid was from Biffa and that was based on a 4 day collection service – something they deliver in authorities elsewhere in the country. Biffa’s bid was assessed by Technical Officers and the Council’s expert consultants, WYG, who confirmed that the level of resources Biffa had allocated for the new service were sufficient and that there was no operational reason why a 4 day service would not be feasible.

The decision to award the 10 year contract to Biffa was made by Cabinet on 19 May 2014. There followed a mobilisation period to ensure  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Cabinet noted that there had been no public questions submitted for consideration.

The Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee reported that the following items of business had been considered at its meeting held on 9 June 2015:

(a)        A presentation from the Barts Health Trust which provided an update on the problems faced by the Trust, and particularly Whipps Cross Hospital. It was noted that the Trust was now in special measures and implementing an improvement programme.

(b)        Reviewed the Key Decision List and the outturn of the Corporate Plan Key Objectives for 2014/15.

(c)        Appointed the Members, Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen to the Select Committees and Task & Finish Panels for the municipal year.

(d)        Agreed the Overview & Scrutiny Annual Report 2014/15 for consideration by the Council on 28 July 2015,

(e)        Agreed to receive a presentation for Essex County Fire & Rescue Service in January 2016, and to investigate the recent problems experienced by Biffa with waste collections throughout the District.

The Cabinet’s agenda was reviewed but there were no specific issues identified on any of the items being considered.

A local Member for Chigwell expressed concern that the report on Whipps Cross Hospital was the worst report seen at an Overview & Scrutiny meeting. Whipps Cross Hospital had a very bad reputation within medical circles, and there had been very few references to patients within the actual presentation itself. The Member requested a further presentation from the Health Trust in the near future.

The Leader of the Council agreed that Barts Health Trust should be requested to make an early return to the Council, and the Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee confirmed that this request had already been made.

(Planning Policy Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-004-2015/16).

(1)        That the exclusion of an area to the west of the M11 motorway from the application by North Weald Bassett Parish Council for the designation of the whole Parish for the purposes of preparing a Neighbourhood Plan be agreed for the following reasons:

            (a)        a number of strategic cross boundary matters had been identified   which   included, but were not limited to, Green Belt review, cross district    boundary agreement of housing and job growth figures, and planning and      delivery of key strategic infrastructure;

            (b)        the matters identified in (a) above were not within the remit of a       Neighbourhood Plan to address;

            (c)        a comprehensive assessment of all of the possible sites around     Harlow (in Epping Forest, Harlow and East Hertfordshire District Council          areas) must be carried out to ensure that the most suitable site(s) (if any at all) were allocated for development in the Local Plans for these three         Districts; and

            (d)        the proposed area to be excluded from the Neighbourhood Area  designation was defined by existing physical and administrative boundaries, and did not cover an area of high existing population.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy presented a report regarding the designation of a Neighbourhood Area for the parish of North Weald Bassett.

The Portfolio Holder stated that an application for the designation of a Neighbourhood Area for the purposes of the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan had been received from North Weald Bassett Parish Council on 8 September 2014.  At the Parish Council’s request, to allow additional time to consider the recommendation of the Council, the consideration and determination of the Parish Council’s application was deferred at the Cabinet meeting held on 9 March 2015.

The Portfolio Holder informed the Cabinet that the location of North Weald Bassett Parish, immediately adjacent to Harlow’s administrative boundary, and the possibility of strategic cross-boundary growth via the Local Plans of Epping Forest, Harlow and East Hertfordshire District Councils, had caused the Council to question the desirability of designating the whole of the Parish as a Neighbourhood Area for neighbourhood planning purposes. In considering the alternatives available, the Council had sought legal advice from Counsel specialising in planning law. Having considered that legal advice, it was thought that the District Council had a broad discretion in determining whether, in the particular circumstances relevant to this application, it was desirable to designate the entire area identified in the application.  As a result,  it had been proposed that the north western part of the Parish, bounded by the M11 motorway to the east, the administrative boundary with Harlow to the north, the Parish boundary to the west and the London Road (B1393) and Rye Hill Road to the south, should be excluded from the Neighbourhood Area designation (the attached map at appendix 2 of the report refers).

The Housing Portfolio Holder, who was a local Member for North Weald Bassett, commented that the District and Parish Councils had a good record of working together. The five Neighbourhood Plans within the District previously agreed had covered the whole area of a particular Parish or Town Council, but North Weald Bassett was seemingly being treated differently. Residents had legitimate concerns about further land being granted to Harlow District Council, as had happened for the development of the Church Langley estate nearly 25 years ago. It was also highlighted that a public consultation had been commenced by the County Council over the possible siting of a Construction & Demolition Waste facility at Hastingwood on a site adjacent to both Junction 7 of the M11 motorway and the area to be omitted from the Neighbourhood Area. The Parish Council wished to work with the District Council over the future of the Parish, and the current approach contravened the aims and aspirations of the Localism Act 2011.

The Portfolio Holder acknowledged that the County Council’s proposed siting of a Construction and Demolition Waste facility had been unexpected, and details of the consultation were only sent to County Council Members last week. The Portfolio Holder had already discussed the matter with the relevant County Council Portfolio Holder and made his objections to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-001-2015/16).

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached addendum report (C-001a-2015/16).

(Housing Portfolio Holder) The attached letter is a background paper for this item.

(1)        That, having regard to the comments of the Epping Forest Tenants & Leaseholders Federation tabled at the meeting, the approach to Housing Related Support (HRS) charges set out in Option 5 within the report be taken, namely to continue with the agreed 2015/16 charges and increase charges further from April 2016 over a period of time until the cost of the Scheme Management Service was self funded, and that:

            (a)        the HRS charges made to Council tenants and private Careline users for   2015/16 be continued for the remainder of the current year; and

            (b)        in advance of the budget cycle for 2016/17, a plan on how much HRS charges      should be increased each year from April 2016 until the cost of the Scheme   Management Service became self-funded, with regard to any annual reductions in     HRS funding from Essex County Council, be recommended by the Housing Portfolio           Holder to the Cabinet;

(2)        That the Housing Select Committee be requested to:

            (a)        consider whether more properties specially designated for older people on             housing estates should be de-designated, with future vacancies used to meet the    increasing demand for younger housing applicants;

            (b)        review the associated level of staffing required to provide the Scheme        Management Service to determine if staffing costs (and therefore HRS charges) could         be reduced as a result; and

(c)       make recommendations to the Housing Portfolio Holder accordingly; and

(3)       That letters be sent to all service users in February 2016, once the Cabinet had determined the HRS charges for 2016/17 and the amount of HRS funding to be received from Essex County Council for 2016/17 was known, explaining the proposed approach and the reasons.

The Housing Portfolio Holder presented a report concerning Housing Related Support Charges and properties designated as being suitable for older people.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the Council had increased its Housing Related Support (HRS) charges to private Careline users and Council tenants living in sheltered and other housing designated for older people by amounts higher than inflation for 2015/16. This was mainly to cover an expected significant reduction in support funding to the Council from Essex County Council (ECC) of at least £133,000 (42%), which Officers from the County Council had advised would be made from April 2016, although it was also to achieve a position whereby the Council’s Careline Service was fully self-funded.

The Portfolio Holder informed the Cabinet that, at a very late stage, the County Council decided not to proceed with the planned Housing Related Support funding reduction for 2015/16.  However, since the Council had already implemented the increased charges and advised all affected tenants, the Housing Portfolio Holder had decided to provide the Cabinet with a report on the main options available to respond to the associated implications of this late decision by the County Council.

The Portfolio Holder outlined the five options available to the Council, with an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each one. This exercise had also highlighted the fact that, due to annual reductions in Support funding from the County Council since 2003, the combined income from Housing Related Support charges and the County Council’s funding no longer bore any resemblance to the cost of the providing the service. Consequently, all other Council tenants, who did not receive the service, now subsidised the cost by around £10 per property per annum. Therefore, the preferred option was to continue the previously agreed Housing Related Support Charges for the reminder of 2015/16 to Council tenants and private Careline users, and for the Portfolio Holder to present a plan to a future meeting of the Cabinet for how much the charges should be increased each year from April 2016 until the Scheme became self-funded, with regard to any further annual reductions from the County Council.

The Portfolio Holder apologised for the tabling of an addendum report, but it indicated the Tenant & Leaseholder Federation’s reluctant support for the preferred option, along with a request that future Housing Related Support Charges be increased over as long a period as possible.

The Portfolio Holder added that the number of properties on housing estates previously designated as being suitable for older people had been reducing, to meet the demand for general needs housing. It was proposed to request the Housing Select Committee to consider whether more properties should be de-designated and to review the staffing levels for the Scheme Management Service to determine if the costs of the Scheme could be reduced further. The Select Committee would be requested to make recommendations to the Portfolio Holder accordingly.

The Cabinet noted the rationale behind the recommendation of the Portfolio Holder and was reassured by the fact that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-003-2015/16).

(1)        That the off-street parking scheme at Torrington Drive, Loughton be brought forward for inclusion in the 2015/16 off-street parking programme to coincide with the Council Housebuilding development, subject to resident consultation and planning approval; and

(2)        That any new off-street parking spaces be provided as a Residents Parking Scheme, consistent with other schemes across the District with permits limited to one per household.

The Housing Portfolio Holder introduced a report concerning the timing of the off-street parking scheme at Torrington Drive in Loughton.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that, at its meeting in February 2015, it had delegated authority to the Council Housebuilding Cabinet Committee to consider the benefits of providing off-street parking spaces in areas in close proximity to housebuilding sites at the same time as when the associated housebuilding feasibility study was considered and recommend to the Cabinet if and when any off-street parking sites were to be included in future years’ programmes. When the Cabinet Committee on 5 March 2015 considered the housebuilding development site at Burton Road in Loughton, consideration was also given to the provision of an off-street parking scheme in Torrington Drive in Loughton. The Cabinet Committee recommended that the scheme be progressed, subject to a public consultation with residents, and that the Director of Neighbourhoods be requested to include the new off-street parking spaces in a Residents Parking Scheme.

The Portfolio Holder stated that an evaluation of the Scheme had concluded it was possible to provide 64 parking spaces, which would enable one space to be allocated to each of the 64 west facing flats that overlooked the Central Line. Permits would be offered for these spaces at a cost of £43 per year and it was suggested that such permits should initially be limited to one per household. The total cost of the Scheme was estimated at £215,000, and the budget for off-street parking schemes currently stood at £1.9million. The proposed Scheme at Torrington Drive was already top of the ranking list for 2016/17, so the construction of the Scheme now would bring it forward by approximately nine months.

The Cabinet heard from a public speaker on this item who stated that residents had been requesting a solution for the parking issues in this area for some time now. The member of the public also requested that the new parking spaces be reserved for the residents of the west facing flats only; that none of the spaces should be made available to other residents in the area, such as Burton Road; and that the surrounding green areas be landscaped as part of the construction of the Scheme. Finally, the resident enquired as to why residents were being asked to pay for parking permits?

The Portfolio Holder responded that the Council would initially offer one space per household to cover all 64 of the west facing flats in Torrington Drive. The fee would enable the parking bays to be managed and enforced and, although the bays would not be numbered, only 64 permits would be issued for the 64 spaces. The local ward Councillors had been consulted upon each of the proposed off-street parking schemes and further public consultation would be undertaken as part of the process to determine the necessary application for planning consent. The Cabinet was reminded that a majority of the residents in the flats had to be in favour of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

(Planning Policy Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-007-2014/15).

(1)        That the updated Local Development Scheme for 2015/16, attached at Appendix 1 of the report, be adopted and published on the Council’s website; and

(2)        That expenditure against the Local Plan budget in 2014/15, the projected expenditure for 2015/16, and the estimated expenditure for 2015/16 and future years, including a need to reconsider the project fund as a whole in the next available budget cycle, be noted.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy presented a report regarding the agreement of the Local Development Scheme for 2015/16, and an update on the Local Plan budget.

The Portfolio Holder stated that the Council had a statutory obligation under the Localism Act 2011 to prepare a Local Development Scheme, which was the high level project plan for the preparation of the Epping Forest District Local Plan. The current Scheme had been approved in July 2014, and now required updating. The main factors that had affected the timetable for the production of the Local Plan since last year were:

            (i)         the requirement for a comprehensive review of the Green Belt;

            (ii)        the work required under the duty to co-operate and to update the Strategic             Housing Market Assessment;

            (iii)       the publication of the latest household projections for the period 2012-37 which      had been published in February 2015;

            (iv)       the additional work required to complete the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment;      and

            (v)        the advice and assistance provided for the development of Neighbourhood             Plans.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the revised timetable for the preparation of the Local Plan indicated that the draft Local Plan public consultation would start in July 2016 and run until September 2016 to allow for the summer holiday period, it would then be published for representations in April 2017, submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in October 2017, the Examination in Public occurring in early 2018, and the final Plan adopted in September 2018.

The Portfolio Holder informed the Cabinet that expenditure on the Local Plan had been approximately £1.2million since 2004/05, and that estimated additional funds in the sum of £537,673 would be required up to 2018/19. This additional expenditure would be provided by the District Development Fund. The Council had experienced difficulties in recruiting experienced staff, despite the budgetary resources being made available, due to the limited number of suitably qualified applicants being available and competition from neighbouring authorities for such staff. Thus, it had been agreed to use the budget from the vacant Planning Officer and Technical Support posts to recruit a Senior Planner on a fixed term contract for 18 months.

The Portfolio Holder added that the Council continually needed to take account of more information made available once the Planning Inspector reports of recent Examinations in Public were published. Further items for the Evidence Base would be coming forward for decision later in the year. The Leader of the Council acknowledged that it was frustrating when the timetable was changed and the publication of the Local Plan was further delayed, but this was predominantly as a result of changes to the process by the Government. It was accepted that this was a long process. The legal advice received was that the Council’s approach was right, and the mantra from the Queens Counsel engaged by the Council was “Do it once, do it well, do it right!”.

Decision:

(1)        That the updated Local Development Scheme for 2015/16, attached at Appendix 1 of the report,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

(Asset Management & Economic Development Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-008-2015/16).

(1)        That the tender bid of £2,385,176 from T. J. Evers Ltd to undertake the design, build and construction of the new depot at Oakwood Hill for Grounds Maintenance and Fleet Operations be accepted; and

(2)        That, pursuant to Overview and Scrutiny Rule 21 (Special Urgency), the Chairman of the Council be requested to waive the call-in arrangements for this decision due to its urgency as any delay in relocating services from Langston Road Depot may impact on the programme for delivering the new Epping Forest Shopping Park.

The Portfolio Holder for Asset Management & Economic Development presented a report concerning the provision of a new Depot at Oakwood Hill in Loughton.

The Portfolio Holder reported that, in order for the development of the Epping Forest Shopping Park at Langston Road to take place, the existing services at that Depot needed to be relocated. Therefore, it was proposed to relocate the Grounds Maintenance Service and Fleet Operations garage to a new depot at Oakwood Hill, also in Loughton. The design layout of the new buildings had been undertaken in consultation with the two services involved to ensure that the proposed accommodation and facilities would need their meets adequately. The project to construct the new depot was offered to five companies, of which three had submitted bids. The lowest bid received was from T. J. Evers Limited in the sum of £2,385,176 although this bid had only accounted for statutory signage and not signage specific to the depot services; this would be covered under the contingency allowance. In addition, statutory diversions had not been included in the tender price, which were the highways works necessary to construct the depot entrance and relocate the bus stop. It was estimated that £50,000 would cover these works.

A local Member for Loughton Broadway noted that the construction cost of the new Depot had not been included in the Development Appraisal for the construction of the Epping Forest Shopping Park. The Council’s Development Consultant for the Shopping Park project confirmed that the cost for the new depot at Oakwood Hill had not been included, as it was being treated as a separate issue.

Decision:

(1)        That the tender bid of £2,385,176 from T. J. Evers Ltd to undertake the design, build and construction of the new depot at Oakwood Hill for Grounds Maintenance and Fleet Operations be accepted; and

(2)        That, pursuant to Overview and Scrutiny Rule 21 (Special Urgency), the Chairman of the Council be requested to waive the call-in arrangements for this decision due to its urgency as any delay in relocating services from Langston Road Depot may impact on the programme for delivering the new Epping Forest Shopping Park.

Reasons for Decision:

To provide new accommodation for relocated staff and to vacate the Langston Road Depot in order to facilitate the development of the Epping Forest Shopping Park.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To not relocate staff to this location and delay the construction of the Epping Forest Shopping Park.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-002-2015/16).

(1)        That, following consultation with site operators, statutory consultees and other interested parties, the Standard Licence Conditions for Holiday Caravan and Camping Sites in Epping Forest District, as attached at Appendix 1 of the report, be adopted.

The Housing Portfolio Holder presented a report on the proposed Site Licence Conditions for Holiday Caravan and Camping sites.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that the Councilwas responsible, through its site licensing regime, for ensuring health, safety and fire safety provisions were satisfactory on the holiday caravan and camping sites within the District. The existing site licence conditions for holiday sites had not been reviewed for many years and were outdated. Following consultation with site operators, statutory consultees and other interested parties, new conditions had been produced which the Cabinet was now being requested to adopt as the Epping Forest District Council Standard Site Licence Conditions for Holiday Camping and Caravan Sites.

The Portfolio Holder added that site licence conditions had been agreed for permanent residential sites in 2013, and for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller sites in 2014. This was the last set of site licence conditions that the Council had to review and implement, and the Portfolio Holder added his thanks to the Officers for their efforts over the past few years.

The Cabinet noted that the Council was now consulted upon by other authorities when they were undertaking similar exercises.

Resolved:

(1)        That, following consultation with site operators, statutory consultees and other interested parties, the Standard Licence Conditions for Holiday Caravan and Camping Sites in Epping Forest District, as attached at Appendix 1 of the report, be adopted.

Reasons for Decision:

The Council was required to issue licences on all park homes sites in the District with conditions that were relevant, consistent and would adequately protect the health and safety of people residing at, or visiting the sites. The existing site licence conditions for Holiday Sites in the District had not been reviewed for many years.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To not produce new licence conditions. However, the existing conditions were outdated and could compromise the health and safety of those visiting the sites.

To not consult with site owners, statutory consultees and other interested parties. However, the relevant legislation required the licence holder to be given an opportunity to make representation before any changes were imposed, and that the Fire Service was consulted before any changes were made.

(Leader of the Council) To consider the attached report (C-005-2015/16).

(1)        That the review of the end of year position in relation to the achievement of the Council’s Key Objectives for 2014/15 be noted.

The Leader of the Council presented a progress report on the achievement of the Council’s Key Objectives for 2014/15.

The Leader stated that the Corporate Plan was the Council’s key strategic planning document, setting out its priorities over the four-year period from 2011/12 to 2014/15, with strategic themes reflecting those of the Community Strategy for the District.Updates to the Corporate Plan were published annually, to reflect the Key Objectives for each year of the plan period and progress against the achievement of Key Objectives for previous years.

The Leader added that the annual identification of Key Objectives provided an opportunity for the Council to focus attention on how areas for improvement would be addressed, opportunities exploited and better outcomes delivered during the year. The Key Objectives were intended to provide a clear statement of the Council's overall intentions for each year, and were supported by a range of actions and deliverables designed to achieve specific outcomes. A range of Key Objectives for 2014/15 had been adopted by the Cabinet in April 2014, and progress in relation to individual actions and deliverables was reviewedby the Cabinet and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on a quarterly and outturn basis.

The Leader reported that, at the end of the year, 35 (65%) of the individual deliverables or actions supporting the Key Objectives had been achieved; and that 19 (35%) of the deliverables or actions had not been completed by year-end although significant progress had been made.

Decision:

(1)        That the review of the end of year position in relation to the achievement of the Council’s Key Objectives for 2014/15 be noted.

Reasons for Decision:

It was important that relevant performance management processes were in place to review progress against the Key Objectives, to ensure their continued achievability and relevance, and to identify proposals for appropriate corrective action in areas of under-performance.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

No other options were appropriate in this respect. Failure to monitor and review performance against the Key Objectivesand to consider corrective action where necessary, could have negative implications for the Council’s reputation and judgements made about its progress, and might mean that opportunities for improvement were lost.

(Finance Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-010-2015/16).

(1)        That the outcome of the tender exercise for the Council’s insurance policies be noted;

(2)        That an agreement with Zurich Municipal be entered into for five years with an option to extend for a further two years; and

(3)        That, pursuant to Overview and Scrutiny Rule 21 (Special Urgency), the Chairman of Council be requested to waive the call-in arrangements for this decision due to its urgency as any delay would prejudice the Council’s interests because there would be a gap between the expiry of the old policies and the commencement of the new policies leaving the Council uninsured for a short period.

The Finance Portfolio Holder presented a report on the outcome of the tender for the Council’s insurance policies.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that the Council was currently insured almost exclusively through Zurich Municipal (ZM), an arrangement that had been in place for many years. When the last long term agreement was tendered in 2010 it was through a collaborative procurement exercise, sponsored by the Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnership (RIEP), with eleven other authorities. The outcome of this process was disappointing as the only insurer to quote for the whole portfolio was Zurich Municipal, and Zurich Municipal were only prepared to enter into contracts for the whole portfolio of covers. Therefore, the Council had no option other than to enter into a new agreement with Zurich Municipal.

The Portfolio Holder reported that, for this renewal, the Council had conducted its own exercise, although given the specialised nature of insurance procurement it was necessary to first appoint a broker to assist with the process and to ensure the best possible response from the market. The Council obtained quotes from three brokers and selected Marsh Limited to assist with the procurement. Tenders were returned on 26 May 2015 by four different insurance companies. Having evaluated the tenders the most economically advantageous tender had been submitted by Zurich Municipal, which provided the Council with a significant saving. Therefore, it was recommended to enter into a further agreement with Zurich Municipal to provide the Council’s insurance policies for five years, with an option to extend the cover for a further two years.

The Cabinet noted the projected saving of £125,000 for the Council’s insurance premiums in 2015/16 from accepting the bid from Zurich Municipal.

Decision:

(1)        That the outcome of the tender exercise for the Council’s insurance policies be noted;

(2)        That an agreement with Zurich Municipal be entered into for five years with an option to extend for a further two years; and

(3)        That, pursuant to Overview and Scrutiny Rule 21 (Special Urgency), the Chairman of Council be requested to waive the call-in arrangements for this decision due to its urgency as any delay would prejudice the Council’s interests because there would be a gap between the expiry of the old policies and the commencement of the new policies leaving the Council uninsured for a short period.

Reason for Decision:

To provide the Council with comprehensive and cost effective insurance cover for the next five years, and Contract Standing Order C22 required approval from either the Council or the Cabinet before any tender valued in excess of £1 million could be accepted.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

The Council could let a number of individual contracts for different parts of the policy portfolio to different insurance companies. However, this had not been recommended as it would be more costly and less efficient.

The Cabinet noted that there was no other urgent business for consideration at the meeting.

Exclusion

To consider whether, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press should be excluded from the meeting for the items of business set out below on grounds that they will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the following paragraph(s) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act (as amended) or are confidential under Section 100(A)(2):

The Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, which came into effect on 1 March 2006, requires the Council to consider whether maintaining the exemption listed above outweighs the potential public interest in disclosing the information. Any member who considers that this test should be applied to any currently exempted matter on this agenda should contact the proper officer at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

Confidential Items Commencement

Paragraph 9 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Constitution require:

(1)        All business of the Council requiring to be transacted in the presence of the press and public to be completed by 10.00 p.m. at the latest.

(2)        At the time appointed under (1) above, the Chairman shall permit the completion of debate on any item still under consideration, and at his or her discretion, any other remaining business whereupon the Council shall proceed to exclude the public and press.

(3)        Any public business remaining to be dealt with shall be deferred until after the completion of the private part of the meeting, including items submitted for report rather than decision.

Background Papers

Paragraph 8 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules of the Constitution define background papers as being documents relating to the subject matter of the report which in the Proper Officer's opinion:

(a)        disclose any facts or matters on which the report or an important part of the report is based;  and

(b)        have been relied on to a material extent in preparing the report and does not include published works or those which disclose exempt or confidential information (as defined in Rule 10) and in respect of executive reports, the advice of any political advisor.

Inspection of background papers may be arranged by contacting the officer responsible for the item.

(1)        That, in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the items of business set out below as it would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraph of Part 1 of Schedule 12(A) of the Act indicated and the exemption was considered to outweigh the potential public interest in disclosing the information:

Decision:

(1)        That, in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the items of business set out below as it would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraph of Part 1 of Schedule 12(A) of the Act indicated and the exemption was considered to outweigh the potential public interest in disclosing the information:

(Asset Management & Economic Development Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached restricted report (C-006-2015/16).

(1)        That, as recommended by the Asset Management & Economic Development Cabinet Committee, the Council’s right to determine the Licence for North Weald Market be exercised, giving six months notice by 30 June 2015, due to the unlikely prospect of an improved trading position by the current market operator Hughmark International;

(2)        That the opportunity to hold regular outdoor events on the current market area at North Weald Airfield be re-tendered by the Council, and to include but not restricted to outdoor markets;

(3)        That the results of the procurement exercise in (2) above be reported to a future meeting of the Cabinet; and

(4)        That, pursuant to Overview & Scrutiny Rule 21 (Special Urgency), the Chairman  of the Council be requested to waive the call-in arrangements for this decision due to the urgency arising from the contractual obligation to give notice of determining the licence by 30 June 2015.

The Portfolio Holder for Asset Management & Economic Development presented a report regarding the licence for the North Weald Market.

The Portfolio Holder reported that, at the meeting of the Asset Management and Economic Development Cabinet Committee on 21 October 2014, it was recommended and subsequently agreed by the Cabinet that the Council would vary the current licence to Hughmark International, the operator of the North Weald Market.  This variation eliminated a fixed fee; instead the Council would receive 75% of any profit, after Hughmark’s operational costs were met. This decision was taken to reflect the trend of declining trade and income generated by the market. In reaching this decision, the Cabinet sought a formal review of the variation to the licence after six months of further trading.

The Portfolio Holder stated that this review was undertaken at the Asset Management and Economic Development Cabinet Committee meeting on 23 April 2015. In reviewing the performance of the market over the last six months, the previous trend of declining trade and income had continued, and the Cabinet Committee felt that the overall position could not be improved. Therefore, it had been recommended that the Council should exercise its right to terminate the Licence, and re-tender the opportunity to hold regular outdoor events on the current market area at North Weald Airfield. Under the terms of the current Licence, the Council had to give notice by 30 June 2015 for the Licence to expire on 31 December 2015. Consequently, it had also been recommended that the call-in period for this decision should be waived under the Special Urgency rules in the Constitution.

The Cabinet acknowledged that the Market had provided a significant income to the Council in the past, but that the current trading conditions had worsened. It was also noted that the Council had provided every possible support to the Market in the previous two years but that it had become no longer sustainable.

Decision:

(1)        That, as recommended by the Asset Management & Economic Development Cabinet Committee, the Council’s right to determine the Licence for North Weald Market be exercised, giving six months notice by 30 June 2015, due to the unlikely prospect of an improved trading position by the current market operator Hughmark International;

(2)        That the opportunity to hold regular outdoor events on the current market area at North Weald Airfield be re-tendered by the Council, and to include but not restricted to outdoor markets;

(3)        That the results of the procurement exercise in (2) above be reported to a future meeting of the Cabinet; and

(4)        That, pursuant to Overview & Scrutiny Rule 21 (Special Urgency), the Chairman  of the Council be requested to waive the call-in arrangements for this decision due to the urgency arising from the contractual obligation to give notice of determining the licence by 30 June 2015.

Reasons for Decision:

To reduce the financial risk to the Council from the continued under-performance of the Market at North Weald Airfield.

To maximise the potential future return to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

(Asset Management & Economic Development Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached restricted report (C-009-2015/16).

(1)        That the buy out of the interest of Polofind Limited in the Epping Forest Shopping Park development by the Council be agreed and in particular, the site known as T11 for the sum of £10,250,000 plus £410,000 for stamp duty and £153,750 for agents fees in accordance with the Heads of Terms attached as an Appendix to the report, which included no further liability by Polofind Limited for the clawback provision of £2,250,000 plus reimbursement of Professional Fees incurred in bringing the site forward;

(2)        That a Capital Supplementary Estimate be recommended to the Council for approval at the Extraordinary Meeting on 23 June 2015 in the sum of the £10,250,000, plus £410,000 for stamp duty and £153,750 for agents fees for the purchase and an estimated £642,000 for professional fees, plus a sum of £19,180,530 making a total of £30,636,280 based on the latest Development Appraisal to enable the Council to construct and let the Epping Forest Shopping Park;

(3)        That Contract Standing Orders C5 and C6 be waived to enable the Council to retain the existing project team, who would be engaged directly by the Council under new contracts developed by DAC Beachcroft, whose provisional appointment as specialist construction lawyers would be confirmed; and

(4)        That a temporary licence of 12 months for two units at Oakwood Hill Industrial Estate be entered into by the Council, to facilitate the vacating of the depot pending the completion of the Council’s new depot facilities at Oakwood Hill, at a cost of £69,000 including internet, utilities and building insurance but not business rates, to be contained within existing provision.

The Portfolio Holder for Asset Management & Economic Development introduced a report concerning the Epping Forest Shopping Park.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that, in accordance with previous policy decisions to derive best value from the Council’s assets and to generate revenue from the investment of capital resources, a number of development projects on Council owned land were currently being progressed. The most significant of these was the Epping Forest Shopping Park in Langston Road, Loughton, which had the capacity to generate employment for local people, provide a significant boost to the local economy, and ensure that retail spend was retained within the District. 

The Portfolio Holder reported that, having obtained the necessary planning consent, and appointed a project team, who had undertaken the necessary development appraisal and cost estimate work, the Cabinet was being requested to  agree a number of important considerations in progressing the project. The first of these was the buying out of the interest of the current joint venture partner, Polofind Limited, for a negotiated sum of £10.25million plus £410,000 for stamp duty and £153,750 for agents fees. The purchase price would include no further liability by Polofind Limited for the clawback provision of £2.25million. The second of these was obtaining the capital provision required to construct and let the shopping park, which it was estimated would cost a further £19.181million. The third consideration was the retention of the existing project team, who would be engaged directly by the Council once the purchase was complete, through the waiver of Contract Standing Orders C5 and C6, and the confirmation of the appointment of DAC Beachcroft as specialist construction lawyers.

The Portfolio Holder highlighted that the European Union procurement requirements (OJEU) would apply to the main building contract, but not to the Section 278 Highways Works Contract, and the Cabinet was requested to authorise the tendering of the Highways works as detailed in the Section 278 agreement to include any advance utilities costs to be met within existing resources allocated to the project to date. It was stressed that the additional procedures to comply with OJEU would make completing the project in time for a Christmas 2016 opening more challenging.

The Cabinet noted the current position on the marketing of the retail park and the potential anchor tenants, as well as the latest Development Appraisal for the project as provided by the Council’s consultants. Whilst it was acknowledged that there was an element of risk if the Council became the sole owner operator, this would enable the Council to have full control of the tenant mix and retain all future income generated by the Shopping Park. It was also emphasised that the Cabinet would continue to receive regular monitoring reports at future meetings.

Local Members from Loughton asked a number of detailed questions concerning the development of the Shopping Park and its potential effects on nearby town centres. The Cabinet noted that there was a lack of such smaller centres inside the area bounded by the M25 motorway,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.