Agenda, decisions and minutes

This meeting is to be webcast and the Chairman will read the following announcement:

“I would like to remind everyone that this meeting will be filmed live or recorded, and uploaded to the internet and will be capable of repeated viewing.

Therefore, by participating in this meeting, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

If any public speakers on MS Teams do not wish to have their image captured, they should ensure that their video setting throughout the meeting is turned off and set to audio only.

Members and public speakersare reminded to turn on their microphones before speaking and turn them off when they have finished.”

The Leader of Council made a short address to remind everyone present that the meeting would be broadcast live to the internet, and would be capable of repeated viewing, which could infringe their human and data protection rights.

To declare interests in any item on this agenda.

Pursuant to the Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct, Councillor S Murray declared a non-pecuniary interest in the item on the Infrastructure Funding Statement by virtue of being Vice-Chairman of Loughton Town Council’s Recreation Committee and was a member of the Epping Forest Heritage Trust.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 11 November 2024.

That the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 11 November 2024 be taken as read and signed by the Leader as a correct record.

Decision:

That the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 11 November 2024 be taken as read and signed by the Leader as a correct record.

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

There were no verbal reports made by Members of the Cabinet on current issues affecting their areas of responsibility.

To receive any questions submitted by members of the public and any requests to address the Cabinet.

(a)        Public Questions

To answer questions asked by members of the public after notice in accordance with the provisions contained within Part 4 of the Constitution (Council Rules, Rule Q3) on any matter in relation to which the Cabinet has powers or duties or which affects the District.

(b)        Requests to Address the Cabinet

Any member of the public or a representative of another organisation may address the Cabinet on any agenda item (except those dealt with in private session as exempt or confidential business) due to be considered at the meeting, in accordance with the provisions contained within Article 7 of the Constitution (The Executive, Paragraphs 27 and 28).

(a)        Public Questions

None were received.

(b)       Requests to address the Cabinet

Loughton Town Councillor D Wixley addressed the Cabinet on the Infrastructure Funding Statement report in relation to the Roding Valley Recreation Ground (RVRG) Enhancement Project, as he was the Chairman of the Recreation Committee. The Town Council had signed a 125-year lease dating from 2006 for the RVRG. Although the RVRG included land in Buckhurst Hill , the Parish Council had not signed the lease in 2006. In 2022 the RVRG was designated a SANG (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace) in the District’s Local Plan. Since then both he and Town Councillor S Murray had attended a site visit that involved the ward Town Councillors and District Councillors. D Wixley remarked that Loughton Town Council could help in the process, as its councillors had a good local knowledge, so it was useful the enhancement project would receive this funding.

The Shaping our District Portfolio Holder (Councillor K Williamson) assured D Wixley that the Town Council would be part of the process in every way in developing a master plan, as well as the Essex Wildlife Trust regarding the Roding Valley Meadows Nature Reserve and District councillors.

To consider any matters of concern to the Cabinet arising from the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny function and to identify any matters that the Cabinet would like the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to examine as part of its work programme.

The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee reported on the last meeting held on 19 November and remarked that members were waiting for responses from Transport for London, which had attended a special meeting of the committee on 29 October. The Committee had scrutinised the Quarter 2 Organisation Performance Outturn and Priority Projects Update, Quarter 2 Budget Monitoring Report 2024/25 and the Review of Council Tax Empty and Second Homes Premiums report. A special meeting of the Committee would be held on 10 December to consider the development of the draft budget proposals for 2025/26, which would not be webcast.

(Shaping our District Portfolio – Cllr K Williamson) To agree the Infrastructure Funding Statement 2023/2024.

(1)           That the Cabinet agreed the Infrastructure Funding Statement 2023/2024 (Appendix 1 of the agenda report) for online publication by 31 December 2024.

(2)           That the Cabinet agreed the Delivering Infrastructure in the District: Developer Contributions Strategy monitoring fee schedule be adjusted to set a minimum monitoring contribution of £150.

The Shaping our District Portfolio Holder introduced the report. Appendix 1 set out the proposed Infrastructure Funding Statement for the District for 2023/2024 and detailed the s106 legal agreements completed in that year, the types and values of contributions included in the agreements and the monies paid to the Council.

The Portfolio Holder replying to questions from Councillor G Wiskin advised he would come back with information on the amount spent of the s106 funds retained, which amounted to £3,164,600 and the interest on the money. The Portfolio Holder would provide information after the meeting on what had been spent of the £257,148 on air quality mitigation and work completed using ANPR (Automatic number plate recognition) data. Much of the work had been done on this massive project and when Cabinet received the findings, it would pass on this information to other councillors. Councillor N Bedford added that the Corporation of London was doing additional work on air quality monitoring and the ANPR cameras provided part of that data, but it had taken a significant amount of time.

Councillor S Murray understood these monies were to make small-scale, general use improvements to maintain paths, for example, on the RVRG, which could be used by the public as an alternative to Epping Forest. The Portfolio Holder agreed that was correct along with enhancements to the Roding Valley Meadows Nature Reserve.

The Portfolio Holder confirmed to Councillor M Owen that air quality was being monitored at Bell Common, Epping. Clarifying if the cost of building near the Forest could be increased, the Portfolio replied that outside consultants had assessed the figures for the effects of traffic on the Forest and other health issues. Councillor N Bedford advised that the Council had been guided by Natural England who had supported a methodology for 3 km and 6.2 km boundaries around the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation. Two separate figures were provided for being inside or outside these boundaries.

The Portfolio Holder answered questions on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), a live document, published in 2020. Councillor G Wiskin said it concentrated on cycle paths, but it was very hilly in Loughton and was peak time traffic management going to be updated. The Portfolio Holder stated that cycling and modal shift were the way forward. There was a huge effort to do this particularly for the Harlow & Gilston Garden Town. When the CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) came in next year, this would help EFDC to do more. Councillor Jon Whitehouse remarked that the IDP rested on an evidence base even older than 2020 that would become out of date and encouraged the Council to check the IDP at least once a year against recent transport studies and updates with other parties including Essex County Council.

The Portfolio Holder replied to Councillor Jon Whitehouse that officers did work hard to progress s106 agreements, but planning applications could not go ahead until the s106 was in place and had been paid by the applicant/developer.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

(Contracts Delivery Portfolio – Cllr R Balcombe) To recommend the additional £1,031,046 allocation within the capital programme for construction of Operations Hub at North Weald Airfield.

That the Cabinet recommended to Council the approval of the additional £1,031,046 allocation within the Capital programme for the construction of the Operations Hub at North Weald Airfield.

The Contracts Delivery Portfolio Holder (Councillor R Balcombe) introduced the report. Stage one of the contract was almost complete with the successful delivery of the interim facility and the completion of the permanent design and associated pricing. However, the temporary facility incurred additional costs above those estimated and included additional temporary fencing, drainage repairs and higher costs for the temporary workshop. The anticipated costs for the permanent facility were higher than originally estimated particularly the drainage arrangements, which were £608,000 over the tendered allowances. Other items included additional design fees, additional preliminary works and ground risk allowance.

In reply to Councillor G Wiskin on whether this was cheaper than using an external operator or had the project been 20% underfunded, the Contracts Service Director (J Warwick) explained the works were more than the original estimate because of the complex drainage requirements on site. The Council did not have a waste depot; therefore, a facility was required. If EFDC had gone out to procurement for a waste contractor as opposed to setting up Terra Verde Services (TVS) Ltd, a waste depot would still be required. EFDC could pay to provide this or ask a waste contractor to provide one, but this cost would then be factored in the contract price, which would mean EFDC would still pay for a waste depot. The Leader clarified the Council had undertaken a tender process for the building works, not TVS.

Councillor S Murray supported bringing waste collection in-house. If EFDC had gone the other route with Biffa would the Council still have built a hub? The Service Director confirmed this was the best option for the Council’s taxpayers. Councillor S Murray was concerned that £608,000 was a lot extra than the tendered amount. The Service Director replied that drainage requirements incorporated into the permanent facility would encompass washdown facilities and fuel was on the complex.

Replying to Councillor Jon Whitehouse the Service Director explained that contractors did not have access to do groundwork surveys, so the drainage issues were only identified afterwards. The Strategic Director & Chief Operating Officer (J Gould) remarked that a briefing note could be included in the minutes. Please see briefing note below:

“The contributing factors for the final contract sum being higher than the initial cost estimate are:

•   The initial estimate was undertaken without the benefit of any formal drainage design and as such was based on a crude £/sqm calculation.

•   The initial estimate was undertaken without the benefit of any ground investigation information (ground is clay - limited opportunity for soakaways).

•   The initial estimate was undertaken without the benefit of any existing drainage system condition information.

•   The design that was produced has required the use of large (below ground) attenuation tanks which have been necessitated by the ground conditions/ existing drainage system and the proximity to the Airfield (no bodies of open water are permitted in close proximity to the Airfield).

•   The use of a crated attenuation system has increased the amount of excavation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with paragraphs 6 and 24 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Constitution requires that the permission of the Chairman be obtained, after prior notice to the Chief Executive, before urgent business not specified in the agenda (including a supplementary agenda of which the statutory period of notice has been given) may be transacted.

In accordance with Operational Standing Order 6 (non-executive bodies), any item raised by a non-member shall require the support of a member of the Committee concerned and the Chairman of that Committee.  Two weeks' notice of non-urgent items is required.

The Leader advised that the extra Cabinet meeting on 19 December 2024 had been cancelled and all business from that meeting would be determined by the Cabinet at the next meeting on 13 January 2025, which would include the Draft Budget 2025/26.