Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Leader of 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.

(a)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillors C Whitbread, S A Stavrou, R Bassett, N Bedford, W Breare-Hall, A Grigg, H Kane, S Kane, J Knapman, J Lea, A Lion, A Mitchell, G Mohindra, A Patel, J Philip, M Sartin, G Shiell, D Stallan, L Wagland, G Waller, S Watson and N Wright declared an interest in agenda item 11, Green Belt Review (Stage I) and Settlement Hierarchy, by virtue of being members of the Epping Forest Conservative Association and the report referenced parcels of land owned by members of the Association. The Councillors had determined that their interest was not pecuniary and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the issue.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Cabinet held on 23 July 2015 (previously circulated).

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting held on 23 July 2015 be taken as read and signed by the Leader of the Council as a correct record.

Resolved:

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting held on 23 July 2015 be taken as read and signed by the Leader of Council as a correct record.

There were no further reports from the Portfolio Holders present on current issues that were not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

There had been no public questions submitted for the Cabinet to consider.

The Cabinet noted that there was nothing to report by the Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, as the next meeting of the Committee was not scheduled until 20 October 2015.

(Asset Management & Economic Development Portfolio Holder) To consider the minutes of the meeting of the Asset Management & Economic Development Cabinet Committee, held on 9 July 2015, and any recommendations therein.

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting of the Asset Management & Economic Development Cabinet Committee, held on 9 July 2015, be noted.

The Portfolio Holder for Asset Management & Economic Development presented the minutes from the meeting of the Asset Management & Economic Development Cabinet Committee, held on 9 July 2015.

There were no recommendations for the Cabinet to consider. Other issues considered by the Cabinet Committee included: a progress report from the Economic Development Team; and a report from the Asset Management Co-Ordination Group. The Portfolio Holder for Technology & Support Services added that BT had been requested to accelerate the roll-out programme for Essex Superfast Broadband.

Decision:

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting of the Asset Management & Economic Development Cabinet Committee, held on 9 July 2015, be noted.

Reason For Decision:

The Cabinet was satisfied that the Cabinet Committee had fully addressed all the relevant issues.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

The Cabinet was satisfied that the Cabinet Committee had considered all the relevant options and that there were no further options to consider.

(Finance Portfolio Holder) To consider the minutes of the meeting of the Finance & Performance Management Cabinet Committee, held on 20 July 2015, and any recommendations therein.

Financial Issues Paper

(1)        That the establishment of a new budgetary framework outlining the budget guidelines for 2016/17 be set, with the following elements:

            (a)        the ceiling for expenditure from the Continuing Services Budget be no        more than £13.003m including net growth;

            (b)        the ceiling for expenditure from the District Development Fund be no          more than £550,000;

            (c)        balances be aligned with the Council’s net budget requirement and be        allowed to fall no lower than 25% of the net budget requirement; and

            (d)        the District Council Tax be increased by 2.5%, with the charge for a           Band ‘D’ property increasing to £152.46 per annum;

(2)        That a revised Medium Term Financial Strategy for the period 2016/17 – 2019/20 be developed accordingly;

(3)        That communication of the revised Medium Term Financial Strategy to staff, partners and other stakeholders be undertaken; and

(4)        That reductions in support for Parish and Town Councils, in line with the reduction in central funding received by the District Council, be progressed.

The Finance Portfolio Holder presented the minutes from the meeting of the Finance & Performance Management Cabinet Committee, held on 20 July 2015.

The Cabinet Committee had made recommendations to the Cabinet concerning the Financial Issues Paper, which included the establishment of guidelines for the 2016/17 Council Budget. Other issues considered by the Cabinet Committee included: the outturn for the Key Performance Indicators for 2014/15; the Corporate Plan Key Action Plan for 2016/17; and the monitoring of Sickness Absence within the Council.

Decision:

Financial Issues Paper

(1)        That the establishment of a new budgetary framework outlining the budget guidelines for 2016/17 be set, with the following elements:

            (a)        the ceiling for expenditure from the Continuing Services Budget be no        more than £13.003m including net growth;

            (b)        the ceiling for expenditure from the District Development Fund be no          more than £550,000;

            (c)        balances be aligned with the Council’s net budget requirement and be        allowed to fall no lower than 25% of the net budget requirement; and

            (d)        the District Council Tax be increased by 2.5%, with the charge for a           Band ‘D’ property increasing to £152.46 per annum;

(2)        That a revised Medium Term Financial Strategy for the period 2016/17 – 2019/20 be developed accordingly;

(3)        That communication of the revised Medium Term Financial Strategy to staff, partners and other stakeholders be undertaken; and

(4)        That reductions in support for Parish and Town Councils, in line with the reduction in central funding received by the District Council, be progressed.

Reason For Decision:

The Cabinet was satisfied that the Cabinet Committee had fully addressed all the relevant issues.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

The Cabinet was satisfied that the Cabinet Committee had considered all the relevant options and that there were no further options to consider.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the minutes from the meeting of the Council Housebuilding Cabinet Committee, held on 27 July 2015, and any recommendations therein.

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting of the Council Housebuilding Cabinet Committee, held on 27 July 2015, be noted.

The Housing Portfolio Holder presented the minutes from the meeting of the Council Housebuilding Cabinet Committee, held on 27 July 2015.

There were no recommendations for the Cabinet to consider. Other issues considered by the Cabinet Committee included a report on the Design and Build Contract for Phase I of the Council Housebuilding Programme.

Decision:

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting of the Council Housebuilding Cabinet Committee, held on 27 July 2015, be noted.

Reason For Decision:

The Cabinet was satisfied that the Cabinet Committee had fully addressed all the relevant issues.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

The Cabinet was satisfied that the Cabinet Committee had considered all the relevant options and that there were no further options to consider.

(Planning Policy Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-025-2015/16).

(1)        That a meeting be held by the Planning Policy Portfolio Holder and Officers with Chigwell Parish Council to discuss in detail the responses to their comments for Stage 1 of the Green Belt Review;

(2)        That the Green Belt Review (Stage 1) report be noted and approved for inclusion in the Local Plan Evidence Base;

(3)        That meetings be held by the Planning Policy Portfolio Holder and Officers with both Buckhurst Hill and Roydon Parish Councils regarding their assessment in the Settlement Hierarchy Technical Paper;

(4)        That the Settlement Hierarchy Technical Paper be noted and approved for inclusion in the Local Plan Evidence Base, subject to any amendments arising from the meetings with Buckhurst Hill and Roydon Parish Councils;

(5)        That paragraph 14 (v)(h) of the methodology be reviewed to consider a more holistic approach than the aggregation of scores for each parcel of Green Belt land;

(6)        That Stage 2 (Detailed Assessment) of the Green Belt Review be undertaken solely by the Council for the Epping Forest District area; and

(7)        That, as amended above, the proposed outline methodology for the Green Belt Review (Detailed Assessment) be agreed, to enable the appointment of consultants to undertake this work.

In the absence of the Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy, who had been delayed on route to the meeting, the Leader of the Council presented a report on Stage I of the Green Belt Review and the Settlement Hierarchy.

The Leader stated that the Green Belt Review was a critical part of the preparation of the Local Plan, and a number of recent Local Plan Examinations in Public had failed as a direct result of not having completed a rigorous Green Belt review. A two-stage approach was being followed, with the first stage now complete. At this strategic level, the findings concluded that all parcels of Green Belt land scored “strongly” or “relatively strongly” against at least one purpose of the Green Belt.

The Leader reported that the second stage of the Green Belt Review would be undertaken jointly with Harlow District Council, and would analyse areas immediately adjoining the existing settlements within the two Districts in a more detailed assessment. This work would be undertaken by consultants and the overall output of this second stage of work would identify:

·       areas where the Green Belt policy designation should remain;

·       any historic anomalies in the existing boundaries or locations where development had taken place, which might suggest minor amendments to Green Belt boundaries were required; and

·       areas that would be least harmful in Green Belt terms for potential development purposes.

The Leader remarked that the Settlement Hierarchy Technical Paper sought to allocate each settlement to a category, by identifying the type of services and facilities that existed in each location. Following a period for comment and validation by Town and Parish Councils, a number of amendments had been made to both reports, and these were detailed in the Appendices, which had been published as background papers for this meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer (Planning Policy) reminded the Cabinet that the Green Belt Review would be a key component of the Local Plan, but it would not decide ultimately where future development would take place in the District. Following his arrival at the meeting and apologising for his delay, the Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy added that the first stage of the Review was based on factual information; no decisions would be taken from this Review, but it would contribute to the identification of the preferred options.

There were reservations expressed about the classification of Roydon as a ‘Large Village’ by the local Member. It was felt that Theydon Bois and Chigwell had many more facilities, and that the Leisure/Sports Facility in Roydon was really more of a Recreational Facility, which would reduce Roydon to the status of a ‘Small Village’. The Principal Planning Officer undertook to review the facilities in Roydon and respond to the Member.

Local Members from Chigwell were very disappointed that they had not been provided with a version of the Green Belt Review document which highlighted all the changes that had been made, as the Parish Council was initially promised. It was also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-022-2015/16).

(1)        That a supplementary capital estimate in the sum of £120,000 for 2015/16 be recommended to the Council for approval to supplement the existing agreed budget of £380,000 for Disabled Facilities Grants;

(2)        That a capital growth bid for a further £120,000 for the following 3 years until 2018/19, £360,000 in total, be made to supplement the existing agreed budget of £380,000 a year for Disabled Facilities Grants; and

(3)        That the Housing Select Committee be requested to add an item to its work programme for 2016/17 to receive a presentation on the effectiveness of Disabled Facilities Grants within the District.

The Housing Portfolio Holder presented a report on the future funding for Disabled Facilities Grants.

The Portfolio Holder stated that the Council had a legal duty to provide Disabled Facilities Grants to residents of the District that met the eligibility criteria under the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. The Grants were means tested up to a maximum of £30,000 to provide essential facilities or access to essential facilities for home owners registered or eligible to be registered as disabled. The grants were initiated by Occupational Therapists from Essex County Council under a referral system. New arrangements implemented by the County Council in 2013 had seen a dramatic increase in the number of referrals received by the District Council.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the budget for Disabled Facility Grants had been set at £380,000 per annum until 2018/19, but this was now felt to be inadequate to meet the demand for the foreseeable future. Unless additional funding was made available then the Council would fail to meet its statutory obligation to provide these essential grants for adaptations. It had been estimated that a further £120,000 per annum would be required to meet the expected demand between now and 2018/19. Consequently, the Cabinet was requested to recommend a supplementary capital estimate in the sum of £120,000 for 2015/16 to the Council for approval, and approve growth bids in the sum of £120,000 be made for the years 2016/17 to 2018/19.

In addition, the Portfolio Holder was proposing that the Housing Select Committee be requested to add an item to its work programme for 2016/17 to consider the effectiveness of Disabled Facilities Grants within the District.

In response to questions from the Members present, the Assistant Director of Communities (Private Sector Housing & Community Support) was confident that the revised estimate for the Disabled Facilities Grants budget was accurate. The Assistant Director also outlined the measures undertaken by the Council to advertise the scheme, which included: exhibitions at local libraries; parish magazines; placing leaflets in Doctors’ surgeries; and information on the Council’s website. There was no waiting list as such for these grants, but the current process was laid down in law and the Assistant Director acknowledged it to be a complex procedure.

The Cabinet felt that the scheme was very beneficial to and much valued by residents, as it enabled applicants to remain in their own homes, and was pleased to support the recommendations.

Decision:

(1)        That a supplementary capital estimate in the sum of £120,000 for 2015/16 be recommended to the Council for approval to supplement the existing agreed budget of £380,000 for Disabled Facilities Grants;

(2)        That a capital growth bid for a further £120,000 for the following 3 years until 2018/19, £360,000 in total, be made to supplement the existing agreed budget of £380,000 a year for Disabled Facilities Grants; and

(3)        That the Housing Select Committee be requested to add an item to its work programme for 2016/17 to receive a presentation on the effectiveness of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-023-2015/16).

(1)        That the ‘Verbal Advice’ section of the Enforcement Options within the Policy be revised to improve its readability and understanding for Private Sector Tenants;

(2)        That the Epping Forest District Council Housing Charter be added as an Appendix to the Policy; and

(3)        That the updated version of the Private Sector Housing Enforcement Policy, attached as an appendix to the report and amended as above, be approved and adopted.

The Housing Portfolio Holder presented a report on the revision of the Private Sector Housing Enforcement Policy.

The Portfolio Holder stated that the existing Private Sector Housing Enforcement Policy had been introduced in 2010, following the transfer of the Private Sector Housing Team to the Housing Directorate. It was now felt appropriate to review and update the Policy to reflect the current exercise of Private Sector Housing Enforcement functions within the new Communities Directorate. In addition, the ‘Regulators Code’ and ‘Code of Practice: Powers of Entry’ had also come into force and had to be taken into account when formulating any enforcement policy. The draft revised Policy had been attached as an Appendix to the main report, and its main principles were to promote proportionate, consistent and targeted regulatory activity through the development of transparent and effective dialogue and understanding between the Council and those that they regulated.

Two issues were brought to the attention of the Cabinet by Members present. Firstly, in section 3.6 – Targeted – it was felt that the Council would be reactive in the private sector, responding to complaints from tenants, whereas the current wording would be more relevant to the public rented sector where the Council could survey the available housing stock and deal with those properties in the worst condition first. The Private Sector Housing Manager confirmed that the Council would deal with each case reported and make an assessment of its severity; cases would then be dealt with in order of severity. It was suggested that the wording of this section should be amended accordingly to reflect the current reality. The second issue concerned the wording of the ‘Verbal Advice’ section under Enforcement Options. It was felt that this wording was confusing and might not be understood by private tenants. It was felt that this section was really outlining a range of circumstances for which verbal advice to the landlord concerned would suffice.

The Portfolio Holder welcomed the comments and acknowledged that the Verbal Advice section should be revised accordingly. It had also been highlighted that a link to the Council’s Housing Charter had been missing, but the Charter would be added as a new Appendix to the Policy.

Decision:

(1)        That the ‘Verbal Advice’ section of the Enforcement Options within the Policy be revised to improve its readability and understanding for Private Sector Tenants;

(2)        That the Epping Forest District Council Housing Charter be added as an Appendix to the Policy; and

(3)        That the updated version of the Private Sector Housing Enforcement Policy, attached as an appendix to the report and amended as above, be approved and adopted.

Reasons for Decision:

To ensure that service users were fully aware of what to expect from the Council, and could be satisfied that they would be treated fairly and proportionately.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To not adopt a policy. However, this would leave the Council open to criticism, and in breach of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

(Asset Management & Economic Development Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-026-2015/16).

(1)        That progress with the Epping Forest Shopping Park project be noted.

The Portfolio Holder for Asset Management & Economic Development presented a progress report on the development of the Epping Forest Shopping Park at Langston Road in Loughton.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that, having acquired the interest of Polofind Limited, the Council was now the sole owner, developer and operator of the site, and the project represented a major capital investment for the Council. The Cabinet noted the following issues concerning the project:

·                      Project Management - DAC Beachcroft had been progressing the contracts with the consultants, and a new Development Surveyor had commenced work on 3 July 2015 to assist with the project.

·                      Highways – Essex County Council had been slow to approve the Section 278 works and it had been decided to commence the tender process as the risk of major alterations being required to the scheme was considered low.

·                      Highways – access to the BP Garage had received planning approval in 2012; however, BP had recently suggested an alternative route. Discussions were on-going but it was intended to proceed with the approved design at the current time.

·                      Planning – the reserved matters planning application had been approved on 10 June 2015.

·                      Architectural – detailed drawings had been completed and would be included in the tender package for the main Design and Build contract.

·                      Procurement – the OJEU restricted procurement timetable for the appointment of the main contractor to build the Shopping Park was being developed by the Council’s external solicitors. It was intended to have all the tender documents ready by the end of August.

·                      Marketing – strong interest continued to be shown in the Shopping Park, and agreement of the heads of terms with the anchor tenants was being finalised.

The Cabinet was cautioned to examine the potential parking issues in the area when the employees of Polofind Limited could no longer park on the T11 site. The Portfolio Holder reassured the Cabinet that this issue would be considered in due course by Officers.

Decision:

(1)        That progress with the Epping Forest Shopping Park project be noted.

Reasons for Decision:

To appraise the Cabinet on the current progress with the Epping Forest Shopping Park project, as requested.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

None, as this was a progress report with no decisions required.

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.

The Cabinet noted that there was no business which necessitated the exclusion of the public and press from the meeting.