Agenda, decisions and minutes

(Head of Research and Democratic Services) To declare interests in any item on this agenda.

Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Ms S Stavrou declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda, by virtue of the applicant being known to the member. The Councillor had determined that her interest was prejudicial and would leave the meeting for the consideration of the item and voting thereon:

·                     Grant Aid 2006/07 – King Harold Day Society.

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

            RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 July 2006 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with paragraphs 6 and 25 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Constitution require 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.

(a)            Tender Acceptance – Electrical Rewiring Programme

The Leader of the Council had determined in accordance with Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with paragraphs (6) and (24) of the Council’s Procedure Rules, that this report be submitted to the meeting in order to avoid any unnecessary delay in the commencement of the work programme.

The Housing Portfolio Holder presented a report concerning the acceptance of tenders for the Electrical Rewiring Programme. The Portfolio Holder reported that a programme of electrical testing had been undertaken at Council properties, which had identified the existing electrical installations at some of these properties as unsatisfactory. To bring these properties up to the requisite standard, it was essential to carry out a complete rewire or an electrical upgrade. A formal tendering procedure had been undertaken in accordance with Contract Standing Orders, where the tender for the works was based on a schedule of rates and included the costs for a complete rewiring of a number of different property types. The deadline for the receipt of tenders was 11 August 2006, and the Portfolio Holder had opened the six tenders received on 15 August 2006.

The Cabinet were informed that T A Horn Limited had submitted the lowest tender, however the tender analysis had highlighted that the tender submitted by Complete Building Services (Herts) Limited had been more competitive on a number of the more frequently used items. Thus, better value for money would be achieved by using the rates tendered by Complete Building Services (Herts) Limited on certain works, and it had been recommended to accept both tenders correspondingly. It was anticipated that individual works orders would be issued with each contractor, but that the total cost of the works during the four-year programme would not exceed the provision within the Capital Programme of £150,000.

            RESOLVED:

That, being the lowest and second lowest tenders received, T A Horn Limited and Complete Building Services (Herts) Limited each be awarded a four-year programme of work for electrical rewiring and remedial electrical works to Council properties, based upon a schedule of rates tender in the sum of £5,016.25 for T A Horn Limited and £5,070.20 for Complete Building Services (Herts) Limited.

Reasons for Decision:

The existing electrical installations to various Council properties varied in terms of their age and condition, and some had been classified as ‘unsatisfactory’ following electrical tests. As a result, they had failed under the ‘Decent Homes’ criteria, and not to undertake the work would result in further deterioration of the electrical installations, with potential health and safety risks.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To undertake the works as part of the Kitchen and Bathroom Programme 2006/07, but this would result in higher costs and would not provide value for money. To have one contractor carry out all the works identified in the programme, but this would not increase the quality of service provided to tenants, or allow one of the contractors to complete the programme if the other experienced problems.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

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

(a)            Customer Services, Media, Communications and ICT

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that a presentation for members regarding Waste Management had been scheduled for 7.30pm on 7 September 2006 in the Council Chamber.

To consider any matters of concern to the Cabinet arising from the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny function.

The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee remarked upon the presentation of the Cabinet’s Work Programme for 2006/07 at the Committee’s last meeting and thanked the Portfolio Holders for their attendance. The Leader of the Council assured the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee that members of the Cabinet would be happy to attend in order to facilitate the Committee’s work.

(Chairman of Joint Consultative Committee) To consider the attached report (C/028/2006-07).

That, as recommended by the Joint Consultative Committee, the Violence at Work Policy be approved and implemented.

The Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder presented a report regarding a Violence at Work Policy for the protection of the Council’s employees when dealing with members of the public. The Portfolio Holder informed the Cabinet that the Management Board had established a Working Party in order to draw up a policy that set out the Council’s approach to dealing with potential violence against staff. The policy drawn up by the Working Party had set out a framework for individual services to develop their own arrangements, suited to local circumstances and needs, and had also set out the support that could be made available to staff who were subject to violence or abuse. Following its implementation, the Safety Forum would evaluate the effectiveness of the policy.

            RESOLVED:

That, as recommended by the Joint Consultative Committee, the Violence at Work Policy be approved and implemented.

Reasons for Decision:

To ensure that the Council had a clear policy in respect of violence at work against members of staff who dealt with the public.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To not implement the policy.

(Chairman of Joint Consultative Committee) To consider the attached report (C/029/2006-07).

(1)       That, as recommended by the Joint Consultative Committee, the Council’s interim policy on the employment of staff over the age of 65 be replaced by the statutory provisions which come into effect on 1 October 2006;

(2)       That the draft procedure for making a request to work beyond the age of 65 be agreed;

(3)       That the Redeployment and Redundancy Procedure be revised to remove any reference to service related criteria for redundancy selection; and

(4)       That, pending review in two years time, the ‘date of birth’ information be retained on the application form.

The Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder presented a report concerning the Age Discrimination Regulations, due to come into force from 1 October 2006. The Portfolio Holder informed the Cabinet that an audit of the Council’s procedures had identified two that required modification in order to be legally compliant. Firstly, the Council had an interim policy that enabled staff over the age of 65 to continue working, subject to an annual medical check. This was potentially discriminatory as it placed a condition on staff over the age of 65 that was not placed on younger employees and could not be justified. Any medical issues would need to be considered as a normal part of employment rather than on attaining the age of 65. Thus, it was proposed to replace the current interim policy with the statutory provisions.

Secondly, the Portfolio Holder reported that the existing Redeployment and Redundancy Procedure included a reference to an individual’s length of service as one of the potential criteria for selection. Again, it had been advised that this could be discriminatory, and the procedure had been redrafted. In addition, the Council’s existing application form included a reference to an applicant’s date of birth. It was recommended to retain this reference, as it would prove useful in checking an applicant’s career history, but that the practice should be reviewed in two years time.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That, as recommended by the Joint Consultative Committee, the Council’s interim policy on the employment of staff over the age of 65 be replaced by the statutory provisions due to come into effect on 1 October 2006;

(2)            That the draft procedure for making a request to work beyond the age of 65 be agreed;

(3)            That the Redeployment and Redundancy Procedure be revised to remove any reference to length of service related criteria for redundancy selection; and

(4)            That, pending a review in two years time, the ‘date of birth’ information be retained on the application form.

Reasons for Decision:

The Council had a statutory duty to comply with the forthcoming regulations.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

There were no other options for action as this would be a statutory duty for the Council.

(Chairman of Joint Consultative Committee) To consider the attached report (C/030/2006-07).

(1)       That the Child Protection Policy be agreed; and

(2)       That the supplementary policy for carrying out disclosure checks on existing staff be agreed.

The Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder presented a report regarding the implementation of a Child Protection Policy, and a supplementary policy for carrying out disclosure checks on existing staff. The Portfolio Holder stated that the Council’s last Comprehensive Performance Assessment had highlighted that an overall child protection strategy and approach did not exist at the corporate level. With the greater national prominence of child protection issues, it was felt necessary to address this deficiency and the roles and responsibilities of designated staff had been set out in the draft policy for approval, in order to ensure that appropriate arrangements were in place.

The Portfolio Holder further added that it had also become necessary to review the current arrangements for carrying out disclosure checks under the Disclosure of Criminal Background Regulations. Currently, disclosure checks were carried out on potential employees prior to their offer of employment, but there were no arrangements in place to re-check staff who might commit relevant offences whilst in employment and which the authority might not be aware of. Thus, it had been proposed that all staff in designated posts be checked every three years. This would be a contractual requirement for all newly appointed staff, although for existing staff this process would be optional as it was not an existing contractual requirement.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That, as recommended by the Joint Consultative Committee, the Child Protection Policy be agreed; and

(2)            That, as recommended by the Joint Consultative Committee, the supplementary policy for carrying out disclosure checks on existing staff be agreed.

Reasons for Decision:

The policy, and the associated policy for carrying out disclosure checks on existing staff, would address a deficiency highlighted during the last Comprehensive Performance Review, and would also reassure the public and service users that all staff working with children and vulnerable adults were suitable and proper.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To not implement the policy, and the associated policy for carrying out disclosure checks on existing staff.

(Chairman of Joint Consultative Committee) To consider the attached report (C/031/2006-07).

That, as recommended by the Joint Consultative Committee, the Work Experience Policy be agreed.

The Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder presented a report concerning the proposed Work Experience Policy. The Portfolio Holder reported that the Council had a longstanding commitment to the provision of work experience placements to students of all ages, which had sometimes led to students gaining permanent positions within the Council. It had become clear that there needed to be common standards applied across the Council and for the expectations upon Students and Managers offering placements to be clear. The proposed policy sought to address these issues and provided a corporate framework.

            RESOLVED:

That, as recommended by the Joint Consultative Committee, the Work Experience Policy be agreed.

Reasons for Decision:

To ensure that the Council had a clear policy with regards to the provision of work experience to local students.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To not agree and implement the policy.

(Chairman of Joint Consultative Committee) To consider the attached report (C/032/2006-07).

(1)       That, following consultation with the Joint Consultative Committee, the proposed Staff Code of Conduct be recommended to the Council for approval;

(2)       That, following approval of the proposed Staff Code of Conduct by the Council:

(a)       all staff in politically restricted posts be required to complete a form declaring outside interests which may have a bearing on their employment;

(b)       all other staff be invited to complete a declaration form on a voluntary basis, unless they have an outside interest which requires them to do so; and

(c)        the existing Officer/Member Protocol be rescinded, as its provisions have been included in the proposed Staff Code of Conduct.

The Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder presented a report regarding the proposed Staff Code of Conduct. The Cabinet were informed that the Audit Commission had commented upon the lack of one overall Code of Conduct for Staff. The Council had been awaiting a national Code of Conduct for officers from the Government; however there had been no further progress since the issue of a draft model a year ago and it was accepted that some arrangements needed to be put in place. The proposed Staff Code of Conduct aimed to set out in one document a clear statement of the responsibilities and obligations for staff, and where appropriate, management. In addition, staff that had outside interests, which might have an effect upon their employment with the Council, were required to complete a declaration form. In any event, it had been proposed that any officers in politically restricted posts would be required to complete a declaration form, given the sensitivity of their positions. As a consequence of adopting the proposed Staff Code of Conduct, it was intended to rescind the existing Officer/Member Protocol, as its provisions had been included in the proposed Staff Code of Conduct.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That, following consultation with the Joint Consultative Committee, the proposed Staff Code of Conduct be recommended to the Council for approval;

(2)            That, following approval of the proposed Staff Code of Conduct by the Council:

(a)            all staff in politically restricted posts be required to complete a form declaring any outside interests which might have a bearing on their employment;

(b)            all other staff be invited to complete a declaration form on a voluntary basis, unless they have an outside interest which requires them to do so; and

(c)            the existing Officer/Member Protocol be rescinded, as its provisions have been included in the proposed Staff Code of Conduct.

Reason for Decision:

The introduction of a code of this nature had a number of advantages: firstly, it set out an explicit expectation of staff in terms of their conduct; and secondly, it was also a protection for staff, providing a proper channel for these matters to be discussed and dealt with.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To not recommend the proposed Staff Code of Conduct to the Council for approval.

(Chairman of Joint Consultative Committee) To consider the attached report (C/049/2006-07).

That, as recommended by the Joint Consultative Committee, the Internet Acceptable Usage Policy be agreed.

The Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder presented a report regarding the proposed Internet Usage Policy for staff. The Portfolio Holder reported that the Council’s Internal Audit Unit had carried out an investigation of staff use of the Internet. This had revealed that there was a small number of staff that spent a considerable period of time ‘surfing’ the Internet. Further analysis had indicated that the majority of this use related to personal rather than business purposes, and an unacceptable amount of work time was wasted as a result. Of particularly serious concern was the fact that some members of staff had used Council Internet access to attempt to visit sites containing inappropriate material. The Internet Policy had been revised by the Head of ICT and the Chief Internal Auditor to make clearer the guidelines on acceptable usage in personal time, and the potential implications for employees who breached the policy. All members of staff who wished to retain their internet access would be required to sign up to the revised policy.

            RESOLVED:

That, as recommended by the Joint Consultative Committee, the Internet Acceptable Usage Policy be agreed.

Reasons for Decision:

To ensure that clear and unequivocal guidelines over Internet usage with Council ICT equipment were provided for the benefit of staff.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To not agree or implement the proposed Internet Usage Policy.

(Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/050/2006-07).

(1)       That, in respect of the ‘Data Quality’ assessment to be undertaken by the Audit Commission, the Council’s self-assessment submission be endorsed;

(2)       That, as endorsed by the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Panel, the draft Data Quality and Value For Money Strategies be adopted; and

(3)       That, in respect of the annual ‘Value For Money’ assessment to be undertaken by the Audit Commission, the Council’s self-assessment submission be considered and agreed by the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee.

The Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder presented a report concerning the draft Data Quality and Value For Money Strategies, and the self-assessment submissions for both to the Audit Commission. The Portfolio Holder reported that the Audit Commission had recently undertaken an assessment of the overall management arrangements of all local authorities to secure data quality, which had examined in detail corporate data quality arrangements. The audit was based upon a self-assessment exercise and on-site validation by the Commission, which would result in a scored judgement after reviewing the following five themes: Governance and Leadership; Policies and Procedures; Systems and Processes; People and Skills; and Data Use.

The Portfolio Holder added that for each theme area, the Commission had specified a number of Key Lines of Enquiry as a basis for councils to undertake a voluntary self-assessment of their current data quality position. The Management Board had determined that the Council should complete the voluntary self-assessment for data quality, and had agreed arrangements for progressing the process at a special meeting of all Heads of Service. The completed self-assessment had to be submitted to the Audit Commission by the middle of August; consequently, it had been considered and agreed by the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Panel at its meeting on 15 August 2006. The Cabinet was requested to endorse the submission. The completion of the self-assessment had provided an opportunity to formulate a corporate approach to data quality through the development of a Data Quality Strategy, which was also considered and agreed by the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Panel at its meeting on 15 August 2006.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that the Audit Commission also intended to undertake the annual Value for Money assessment of the Council. This exercise also included a self-assessment element that had to be submitted to the Audit Commission by 30 September 2006. In preparing for this assessment, a need had been identified to bring together the various elements of the Council’s current approach. A corporate Value for Money strategy had been developed that set out the Council’s overall approach and had allocated appropriate responsibilities at both Member and Officer level. This strategy was also agreed at the meeting of the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Panel held on 15 August 2006. Thus, the Cabinet was requested to endorse the Value for Money strategy and agree that the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee, at its meeting scheduled for 25 September 2006, should consider the self-assessment in order to meet the 30 September 2006 submission deadline.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That, in respect of the ‘Data Quality’ assessment to be undertaken by the Audit Commission, the Council’s self-assessment submission be endorsed;

(2)            That, as endorsed by the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Panel, the draft Data Quality and Value For Money Strategies be adopted; and

(3)            That, in respect of the annual ‘Value For Money’ assessment to be undertaken by the Audit Commission, the Council’s self-assessment submission be considered and agreed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

(Leader of the Council) To consider the attached report (C/033/2006-07).

That funding from the Grant Aid Scheme totalling £2,500 be awarded to the King Harold Day Society.

The Leader of the Council presented a report concerning an application from the King Harold Day Society for a grant of £2,500 from the Council’s Grant Aid scheme. The Leader informed the Cabinet that the Society arranged an annual event in Waltham Abbey to increase awareness of the local heritage and history connected with the town. The grant, if agreed, would be used to purchase some permanent interpretation boards. The Leader commended the application to the Cabinet as a worthy cause for the Grant Aid scheme.

            RESOLVED:

That funding from the Grant Aid Scheme totalling £2,500 be awarded to the King Harold Day Society.

Reasons for Decision:

The application from the King Harold Day Society for a major grant had been deemed worthy under the terms of the Grant Aid Scheme as it would provide and promote opportunities for residents to participate in cultural activities held within the District.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To defer or refuse the application, or to grant an amount other than that requested.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/035/2006-07).

That the following criteria for a Small Loans Scheme using the existing balance on the Small Loans account be established and agreed:

(a)       loans will only be given subject to available resources and will not exceed £1,000;

(b)       the applicant must be a homeowner or private sector tenant, and each applicant shall only receive one loan, with preferential treatment given to older people;

(c)        the interest rate applied will be in line with the Standard National Rate, and the term of repayment shall not exceed four years;

(d)            repayments will be made monthly by Standing Order;

(e)       loans may only be given for work that is wholly necessary and, where other assistance is not available to top-up Small Works or Decent Homes Assistance, Thermal Comfort Grant or Handyperson Service work, or for work that is not grant-aidable;

(f)         the work that is the subject of the loan must be carried out by a contractor from the C.A.R.E. Preferred Contractor List or other approved Contractor;

(g)       that the Head of Environmental Services be authorised to approve Small Loans subject to the applicant having received and understood the guidelines set out in (i) to (iii) below:

(i)         that the terms of the loan may not be the best available and better terms may be available from an alternative lender;

(ii)        that the client should seek independent financial advice before agreeing to the loan; and

(iii)       that they should discuss the loan with their family; and

(h)        a status report shall be given at each C.A.R.E. Advisory Panel meeting.

The Housing Portfolio Holder presented a report concerning the Caring and Repairing in Epping Forest (C.A.R.E.) Small Loans Scheme. The Cabinet were informed that C.A.R.E. had provided 15 small loans since 1995 of between £300 and £1,000 for a variety of work that was not eligible for local authority grants or assistance under the Handyperson service, and for supplements to Home Repairs Assistance funding. Loans were repaid at a monthly rate, usually over four years, with a simple interest rate of 5% per annum. The Council had taken over the management of C.A.R.E. in 2003. The Internal Audit Unit had advised that it would be inappropriate to offer any new loans but any existing loans should be administered until they were repaid. The balance on the Small Loans Account was currently £3,500 and this would rise to £5,375 when the two remaining loans were repaid.

The Portfolio Holder stated that the Council’s Financial Regulations did not prohibit the provision of loans but the current policy was not to offer any. If a scheme was established it would have to be regularly reviewed in line with corporate policies, formally approved by the Council and included in the annual review process. The proposed terms of each loan and the application process to be followed were outlined, including an amendment that the Head of Environmental Services be authorised to approve Small Loans provided that the applicant had received and understood the guidelines for the scheme. The Leader of the Council was in favour of the scheme continuing, whilst the Assistant Head of Finance informed the Cabinet that interest would be charged by the Council at the Standard National Rate as set by the Department of Communities and Local Government.

            RESOLVED:

That the following criteria for a Small Loans Scheme using the existing balance on the Small Loans account be established and agreed:

(a)            loans will only be given subject to available resources and will not exceed £1,000;

(b)            the applicant must be a homeowner or private sector tenant, and each applicant shall only receive one loan, with preferential treatment given to older people;

(c)            the interest rate applied will be in line with the Standard National Rate, and the term of repayment shall not exceed four years;

(d)            repayments will be made monthly by Standing Order;

(e)            loans may only be given for work that is wholly necessary and, where other assistance is not available and to top-up Small Works or Decent Homes Assistance, Thermal Comfort Grant or Handyperson Service work, or for work that is not grant-aidable;

(f)            the work that is the subject of the loan must be carried out by a contractor from the C.A.R.E. Preferred Contractor List or other approved Contractor;

(g)            that the Head of Environmental Services be authorised to approve Small Loans subject to the applicant having received and understood the guidelines set out in (i) to (iii) below:

(i)            that the terms of the loan may not be the best available and better terms may be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

(Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/036/2006-07).

(1)       That, in order to replace the existing eurobins, a portable skip type compactor be purchased for the collection of trade refuse and recycling material from the Civic Offices site; and

(2)       That, in order to enable the purchase to proceed, a supplementary capital estimate in the sum of £15,500 for 2006/07 be recommended to the Council for approval.

The Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder presented a report regarding the refuse collection and disposal arrangements at the Civic Offices. The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that at the meeting held on 14 November 2005, it was agreed to replace the eurobins currently used for waste collection with a portable compactor for a three-month trial period. The trial period commenced in December 2005 and had worked well, but it did highlight three issues: the compactor required collection more frequently than had been estimated, which increased transportation costs; there were limitations upon the number of bulky items that could be put into the compactor without further increasing the collection frequency; and the agreement with the Council’s existing waste contractor had suffered due to their limitations in handling and sorting the material. An alternative contractor had been identified, who had guaranteed that between 80-90% of the Council’s waste would be recycled. The transportation and processing costs of the new contractor were less, which would offset the additional costs of the increased frequency of collection required.

The Portfolio Holder further reported that it had originally been thought that renting the compactor was the most cost effective solution, however it had been calculated that, over a standard rental period of five years, renting would be more expensive than outright purchase. Hence, it had been recommended to purchase the compactor at a cost of £15,500. In addition to the purchase costs, revised revenue costs had been calculated, which indicated that the Council would save over £3,000 per annum if the compactor was purchased outright. It was proposed to utilise these savings to remove bulky items that could not be placed in the compactor and also for likely additional costs of separating & removing material covered by various regulations either in force or due shortly to come into force that could not be put into the compactor or sent to landfill.

The Leader of the Council commented that the investment cost to the Council, of £700 in lost interest, should have been included in the figures although it would still make outright purchase a cheaper option than rental. The Customer Services, Media, Communications and ICT Portfolio Holder welcomed the proposal as the Council should strive to be the top recycler within the District and it would enable the Council to set an example to its residents.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That, in order to replace the existing eurobins, a portable skip type compactor be purchased for the collection of trade refuse and recycling material from the Civic Offices site; and

(2)            That, in order to enable the purchase to proceed, a supplementary capital estimate in the sum of £15,500 for 2006/07 be recommended to the Council for approval.

Reasons for Decision:

The change to the use of a portable compactor as opposed to the existing eurobin arrangements would enable a greater percentage of waste material from the Civic Offices to be recycled and would demonstrate the Council’s commitment to improving its own performance on recycling  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

(Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/037/2006-07).

(1)       That a growth bid be made for capital provision in the sum of £16,000 for 2007/08 for the purchase of two new messenger vehicles; and

(2)       That consideration be given as to whether the service could be provided by only one vehicle.

The Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder presented a report about the renewal of the Council’s messenger vehicles. The Portfolio Holder reported that the Council currently had two Ford Fiesta vans that were used for the daily internal messenger service to Council premises within the District, the twice-weekly delivery of mail to Members, and other routine tasks where a van was more practical than a car. The existing vehicles were leased, and the leases were due to expire in October and December 2006 respectively. Officers had undertaken a comparison of the costs involved in either purchasing or leasing two new vehicles, which had indicated that outright purchase of two new vehicles would be the most cost effective option. The Cabinet were reminded that the vehicles were an important element within the governance process of the Council.

There was some concern expressed within the Cabinet as to whether the Council could afford the purchase of two new vehicles, as it was still not clear what the final cost of the Waste Management Contract would be following the conclusion of the tendering exercise. The Leader of the Council inquired as to whether only one vehicle could be purchased to cover all the current commitments of both vehicles. The Joint Chief Executive (Resources) suggested that the growth bid to purchase two vehicles be allowed to proceed, as this would not commit the Council to their purchase, whilst in the interim officers would consider whether the current level of service could be maintained through the purchase of only one new vehicle.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That a growth bid be made for capital provision in the sum of £16,000 for 2007/08 for the purchase of two new messenger vehicles; and

(2)            That consideration be given as to whether the service could be provided by only one vehicle.

Reasons for Decision:

The vehicles were required to maintain the internal messenger service to Council premises around the District, for the twice-weekly delivery to Members and for other routine tasks. As the final cost of the new Waste Management Contract was as yet unknown, officers were asked to consider whether the current service could be provided by only one new vehicle.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To hire one vehicle for five days per week and another vehicle for two days per week, but this option would be prohibitively expensive costing £62,901 over a five-year period.

To lease two new vehicles for a further five years, but this option would cost £25,876, which was still more expensive than outright purchase.

 To extend the existing leases on a year-by-year basis, or to purchase the two current vehicles at the end of their leases, but neither option was cost effective when compared with outright purchase of two new vehicles.

(Community Wellbeing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/038/2006-07).

That, in order to fund the shortfall over existing budget provision for the creation of a new full-time post of Emergency Planning Officer, a CSB growth bid in the sum of £19,200 for 2007/08 be made.

The Community Wellbeing Portfolio Holder presented a report that requested a new post of Emergency Planning Officer be added to the establishment to enable the Council to meet its statutory obligations under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. The Portfolio Holder reported that before the introduction of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, the Council’s role was to support the emergency services, provide humanitarian assistance for incidents within the District, maintain an emergency plan and provide training for the Emergency Planning Team. The introduction of the Act had meant that the Council had to participate not only in local planning but also in wider regional arrangements that included London. There was also an additional responsibility to provide business continuity management advice and assistance to local businesses and voluntary organisations.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that it had been previously agreed to support joint arrangements with Essex County Council, whereby a Joint Emergency Planning Officer dedicated half of their time to work for the Council at a cost to the Council of £15,000 per annum, and that a new Emergency Planning Officer post should be appointed. In addition, Emergency Planning was to be brought within the Comprehensive Performance Assessment process, whereby formal evidence would need to be presented to demonstrate the Council’s level of preparedness. Thus, it had been proposed to create a new Emergency Planning Officer post, reporting to the Assistant Head (Administration) and District Emergency Planning Officer, for which there was a requirement for an additional £19,200 of CSB funding.

The Assistant Head (Administration) stated that Emergency Planning was currently taking up approximately 40% of his time, and that he could carry on with these duties for the remainder of the municipal year but that a new officer would be required for 2007/08. The Cabinet agreed that, although there was sufficient budget provision, authority would not be given to fill the post in 2006/07 but a CSB growth bid could be made to fill the post in 2007/08.

            RESOLVED:

That, in order to fund the shortfall over existing budget provision for the creation of a new full-time post of Emergency Planning Officer, a CSB growth bid in the sum of £19,200 for 2007/08 be made.

Reasons for Decision:

The new post was required in order for the Council to properly discharge its statutory duties under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To do nothing, or limit extra staff resource to within existing budget provision, which could put the Council in a potentially vulnerable position when attempting to meet its statutory obligations.

(Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/039/2006-07).

(1)       That the 2005/06 outturn for Prudential Indicators be approved;

(2)       That the Treasury Management Stewardship Report 2005/06 be noted; and

(3)       That Butlers, the Council’s professional treasury advisers, be invited to give a presentation and recommend any other investments that might provide a higher return for the Council.

The Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder presented a report regarding the Council’s Treasury Management Policies and Investment Practices. The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that the Council had adopted the CIPFA Code of Practice for Treasury Management in the Public Sector in 2002, and that its Treasury Management Service was operated in compliance with this Code. The prime objectives of the Council’s Treasury Management activities were the effective management of risk and that any borrowing activities were undertaken on a prudent, affordable and sustainable basis.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the original Treasury Management strategy for 2005/06 outlined a cautious approach, in response to advice provided by the Council’s Treasury advisors Butlers. The main change was in the part of the portfolio kept available for instant access, whereby funds previously used for call deals on the money market had been invested in an instant access deposit account with the Bank of Scotland instead. The interest rate was set at the Bank of England Base Rate, which was generally 0.3% better than the average call deal struck on the open market. This approach was further modified in January 2006, when the Bank of Scotland informed the Council that they could not maintain the current rates of interest. After comparing similar accounts offered by the Council’s main banker, NatWest, a seven-day notice account was opened with the Bank of Scotland, to run alongside the instant access account, at an interest rate based upon the three-month LIBOR. It was intended to keep funds within this account to the highest possible level whilst still maintaining the required level of funds available for instant access for short notice withdrawals.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the Treasury position as of 31 March 2006 was as follows: £43million invested in fixed interest products generating an average return of 4.58%; £1.52million invested in variable interest products generating an average return of 4.51%. This gave the total funds under investment as £44.52million generating an average return of 4.58%. Throughout the year, the Council had maintained an average investment of £46.7million that had generated an average return of 4.73% in comparison to an average net return of 4.51% for money market funds. The benchmark for local authority Treasury performance was the average seven-day LIBID rate, which was 4.53% in 2005/06, and in exceeding this benchmark the Council had earned an additional £92,000 in interest. The Council had also met all its Prudential Indicators for 2005/06: the Net Borrowing position was negative as the Council was debt-free and an investor; and gross borrowing had been maintained within its authorised limit. No external loans had been drawn to finance the Council’s Capital Expenditure programme, which had enabled the Council to maintain its debt-free status.

The Portfolio Holder stated that there had been one breach of the Council’s Treasury Management rules during 2005/06. An investment of £1million with Northern Rock PLC had taken the funds invested to £6million, against a counterparty limit of £5million. The breach had been reported  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

(Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/040/2006-07).

That the discount for Class C properties (Long-Term Empty Properties) within the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (England) Regulations 2003:

(a)            remains at 50% for six months; and

(b)            thereafter be removed.

The Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder presented a report on Council Tax discounts for long-term empty properties. The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that the owners of empty properties were currently eligible to a six-month exemption from Council Tax, provided the properties were substantially unfurnished and not the sole or main residence of a person. Currently, the Council applied a 50% discount after the expiry of this six-month period, although the regulations permitted this discretionary discount to be reduced or removed completely.

The Portfolio Holder explained that if the Council reduced or removed the discount for long-term empty properties, it would be taken into account when the tax base for Council Tax purposes was calculated and the Council would not retain the financial benefit. However, the Cabinet had previously requested that the discount for long-term empty properties be reviewed in order to ascertain whether the removal of the discount would help to alleviate the housing problems within the District by bringing more empty properties back into use.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the Housing Scrutiny Panel had considered this issue at its meeting on 30 January 2006 as part of the Empty Property Strategy. The Panel felt that as a number of empty properties were sold between the period of six months and one year after becoming empty, their recommendation was for the discount to remain at 50% for a period of six months after the expiry of the exemption period and that a full charge should then be levied one year after the property became empty. The Cabinet concurred with the recommendation of the Housing Scrutiny Panel but amended the wording of the recommendation (b) in order to avoid any potential confusion over when the discounted period would end.

            RESOLVED:

That the discount for Class C properties (Long-Term Empty Properties) within the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (England) Regulations 2003:

(a)            remains at 50% for six months; and

(b)            thereafter be removed.

Reasons for Decision:

The reduction in the Council Tax discount for long-term empty properties would assist the Council’s empty property strategy by encouraging owners to bring empty properties back into use.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To not remove the Council Tax discount for long-term empty properties.

To remove the Council Tax discount for long-term empty properties immediately after the six month exemption period expires.

(Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/042/2006-07).

(1)       That, in accordance with the Corporate ICT Strategy, the ICT system for the Local Taxation and Benefits Service be replaced;

(2)       That quotations be obtained using the Catalist system managed by the Office of Government Commerce; and

(3)       That, after quotations have been obtained, a detailed report covering the financial implications of replacing the ICT system, including the cost of bespoking the Council’s current system, be submitted to the Cabinet.

The Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder presented a report on the replacement of the Local Taxation and Benefits ICT system. The Portfolio Holder reported that the Council’s Corporate ICT strategy 2006/08 had incorporated the requirements from the Government to allow individual citizens to access information and perform transactions directly through the Council’s website, without any officer intervention. To support this aim, the Government had developed a common method of access and authentication for customers across all Government Agencies called ‘Government Connect’. The first systems identified to meet this requirement were Housing Benefits, Council Tax and National Non-Domestic Rates, however the current system in use, Orbis, was not compatible with ‘Government Connect’. In addition, Scottish authorities primarily used Orbis and the Council was now the only English local authority using Orbis. There were different legislative requirements between the English and Scottish systems, which required cost-prohibitive bespoke work to be undertaken for the Council. Thus, it had been proposed to migrate to a ‘Government Connect’ compliant solution before the expiry of the Orbis licence in June 2008.

The Portfolio Holder added that procurements of this value would normally require an open tender exercise, however Contract Standing Order C14 provided an exception for consortia or public supply agencies of which the Council was a member. Thus, it was proposed to utilise the Catalist system, a catalogue based procurement scheme established to provide public sector organisations with a simplified means of procuring ICT services from a variety of providers. Catalist would reduce the time and costs involved with the procurement by offering a pre-tendered call-off facility and was also fully compliant with EU procurement directives. A further report to the Cabinet was planned for December 2006 after quotations had been obtained and the financial implications of replacing the ICT system had been further considered.

The Assistant Head of Finance (Revenues) reiterated that the Council was the only English local authority using the Orbis system, and as such the suppliers Anite could decide at any time to no longer support the system in order to concentrate their resources upon the more popular Scottish version of the system. The Cabinet felt that the full cost of possible future bespoke work to the Council’s version of Orbis had not been included in the report, and as such should be included in the further report to be submitted to the Cabinet at its December meeting.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That, in accordance with the Corporate ICT Strategy, the ICT system for the Local Taxation and Benefits Service be replaced;

(2)            That quotations be obtained using the Catalist system managed by the Office of Government Commerce; and

(3)            That, after quotations have been obtained, a detailed report covering the financial implications of replacing the ICT system, including the cost of bespoking the Council’s current system, be submitted to the Cabinet.

Reasons for Decision:

The Council’s licence to use the Orbis system expired on 30 June 2008, and steps had to be taken to procure and implement a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

(Leisure and Young People Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/043/2006-07).

(1)       That, in order to undertake remedial works to the Fisherman’s Car Park in the Roding Valley Recreation Ground, a supplementary DDF estimate for 2006/07 in the sum of £7,000 be recommended to the Council for approval; and

(2)       That, following approval of the supplementary estimate by the Council, the Head of Leisure Services be authorised to undertake a competitive tendering exercise in accordance with Contract Standing Orders.

The Leisure and Young People Portfolio Holder presented a report concerning the resurfacing and maintenance of Fisherman’s Car Park in Chigwell. The Portfolio Holder explained that the area known as Fisherman’s Car Park was an area of hard standing used by members of the public visiting either the Roding Valley Nature Reserve on the east bank of the River Roding or the recreation area on the west bank. Responsibility for the car park fell under the jurisdiction of Leisure Services, but as there had never been a specific budget for this area, only minor repairs had ever been performed. The car park comprised of road scalpings compressed into the soil surface and was in an extremely poor condition with numerous potholes. A narrow strip of vegetation adjoined the car park, which was overgrown, unsightly, and contained a considerable amount of wind blown litter and dumped rubbish. There had been a number of complaints from users regarding the condition of the area and it was felt that work should be undertaken to prevent any health and safety issues arising. In addition, the Council was negotiating with both Buckhurst Hill Parish Council and Loughton Town Council to lease these areas to them for a period of 125 years. Thus, it had been anticipated that future maintenance would not be the responsibility of the Council, however, the car park required maintenance to bring it up to an acceptable standard before it could be leased.

The Portfolio Holder reported that, following a site visit by May Gurney, the recommended solution would be to level a sufficient depth of road scalpings across the entire site and compact this into the existing base. This would provide a firm, even surface that was both hardwearing and cost effective, with a minimum life expectancy of five to seven years. In addition, it was proposed to instigate a monthly cleaning regime to improve the general appearance of the site, open up the site through cutting back the vegetation, and deposit a layer of wood chippings along the grass pathway from the car park to the footbridge spanning the River Roding to enable the path to be used throughout the whole year.

The Head of Leisure Services informed the Cabinet that it was intended for the Council’s ‘approved’ highways contractor May Gurney to undertake the works, however the Cabinet felt that a competitive tendering exercise should be undertaken in accordance with Contract Standing Orders.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That, in order to undertake remedial works to the Fisherman’s Car Park in the Roding Valley Recreation Ground, a supplementary DDF estimate for 2006/07 in the sum of £7,000 be recommended to the Council for approval; and

(2)            That, following approval of the supplementary estimate by the Council, the Head of Leisure Services be authorised to undertake a competitive tendering exercise in accordance with Contract Standing Orders.

Reasons for Decision:

There had been a steady decline in the overall condition of the site and it was now deemed essential that proper remedial works be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

(Leisure and Young People Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/044/2006-07).

That, in order to enable the re-location of the District Sportability Club to Waltham Abbey Sports Centre, a supplementary DDF estimate for 2006/07 in the sum of £10,000 be recommended to the Council for approval for the installation of a disabled toilet.

The Leisure and Young People Portfolio Holder presented a report regarding the installation of a disabled toilet at Waltham Abbey Sports Centre. The Portfolio Holder reported that in October 2005, the District Sportability Club had been launched to provide spots and activities for children and young people with learning and physical disabilities. The club met weekly on a Saturday at Oakview School in Loughton, with the Sports Development Team from Leisure Services providing support and direction for the programme. However, participation levels had been limited by the constraints of the building and the long-term aims of the Club were not being met. The Sports Development Team had been successful in securing £27,000 of funding from the Children’s Fund Essex over the next two years to widen the opportunities available through Sportability, which could be achieved by transferring the Club to a larger venue.

The Portfolio Holder stated that Waltham Abbey Sports Centre was the most accessible District Council operated sportscentre for wheelchair users, but it did not have any disabled toilet facilities. There was no space for a new toilet within the sportscentre’s existing changing facilities. However, the Headteacher of King Harold School, which currently had a joint use agreement with the Council, had agreed that the Staff PE room located within the sportscentre could be converted into a disabled toilet facility.

            RESOLVED:

That, in order to enable the re-location of the District Sportability Club to Waltham Abbey Sports Centre, a supplementary DDF estimate for 2006/07 in the sum of £10,000 be recommended to the Council for approval for the installation of a disabled toilet.

Reasons for Decision:

The provision of a disabled toilet and subsequent full disabled access at Waltham Abbey Sports Centre would enable many more children with disabilities to access the sports and leisure provision. Although the future of Waltham Abbey Sports Centre was currently under review pending the end of the Dual Use Agreement in September 2007, the provision of a disabled toilet would provide considerable community benefit and ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. The Epping Forest Sportability Club provided the only multi-sport environment for children and young people with disabilities within the District.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

That the Council does not fund the provision of a disabled toilet at Waltham Abbey Sports Centre, but this would not utilise the £27,000 of external revenue funding raised and the facility would not comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 2005.

(Leisure and Young People Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/045/2006-07).

(1)       That the range of improvements proposed for the Playing Fields at the rear of Ongar Leisure Centre, providing a multi-sports site offering quality facilities and maximising participation in sport by people of all ages and abilities, be supported in principle;

(2)       That a further report be submitted to a future meeting providing further details on the projected cost of each option to include:

(a)            revenue consequences; and

(b)       the level of external financial support being made available to support the project; and

(3)       That, dependent upon the outcome of the further feasibility work, a bid for resources to be made available within the Council’s capital programme to meet any short-fall in external funding be considered.

The Leisure and Young People Portfolio Holder presented a report concerning proposed improvements to the playing fields at Ongar Leisure Centre. The Portfolio Holder stated that the playing fields at Ongar Leisure Centre currently accommodated three full-size football pitches, of which one was a good quality match pitch. Although the pitches were used for weekly training sessions and casual bookings, they were under-utilised and had considerable scope for a range of future development opportunities, including the creation of a Multi-Sport Hub Site. The site could accommodate a Multi-Sport Hub Site with the provision of a cross-section of sports for juniors, young people and adults. The infrastructure required would include the installation of a cricket square, levelling of the existing grass areas and the marking of pitches or tracks. It would also be necessary to construct a Pavilion with four changing rooms, toilets, kitchen and open area for use by the range of groups involved; and could be available for alternative uses during the day. The current facilities also included a floodlit all weather area, which could be extended and improved to accommodate a netball court size multi-use games area.

The Portfolio Holder informed the Cabinet that the Sports Development Team had highlighted a soccer centre for juniors and youths, tag rugby, junior and youth athletics, junior and senior cricket, and men’s training and casual football. These sports were not widely available in the area, and lent themselves to participation by women and girls, who were a key target group. A number of local schools had expressed an interest in using the proposed facilities for a range of events. Research work carried out in conjunction with the Essex Football Association had also identified a need for an all-weather Astroturf pitch in the north of the District, whilst the Football Foundation were keen for a junior soccer centre to be established at the site.

The Portfolio Holder advised that preliminary discussions had taken place with the Football Foundation regarding funding for the Astroturf pitch and pavilion, which could also include funding for a Development Officer to manage the new facilities. Discussions had also taken place with Sport England concerning possible funding for the re-establishment of playing pitches in the District, but this was linked to the outcome of the St John’s School development in Epping. It was anticipated that the Development Officer would manage and deliver the daytime activities within the pavilion and the early evening junior courses, whilst the Leisure Centre at Ongar would under take the management of the Astroturf and any casual bookings.

The Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder suggested that the current budget provision of £100,000 per annum for Youth Facilities could be allocated to the improvements of the playing fields at Ongar Leisure Centre when the current three-year programme had been completed. The Cabinet felt that no commitment should be made until the further report had been received regarding the projected costs of each option, the revenue consequences and the level of external  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

(Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/046/2006-07).

(1)       That the staffing, budget and work programme issues in the Conservation and Landscape Team be noted;

(2)       That the proposed change in the method of prioritisation for the Conservation Grants budget be agreed in principle;

(3)       That the need for a specific budget to deal with claims against the Council for subsidence to properties affected by preserved trees be noted and a supplementary DDF estimate in the sum of £5,000 for 2006/07 be recommended to the Council for approval;

(4)       That the need to undertake an urgent review of the wildlife sites within the District be noted, but that this review be deferred until 2007/08;

(5)       That the Head of Planning and Economic Development be authorised to sign management agreements on behalf of Countrycare:

(a)            including those with financial commitments, up to a maximum of £1,250 per agreement per annum; and

(b)       all previously signed agreements be retrospectively approved.

The Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder presented a report upon the Conservation and Landscape Team within Planning Services. The Portfolio Holder informed the Cabinet of several issues affecting the Conservation and Landscape Team within Planning Services, and sought approval from the Cabinet for changes to the way that the Conservation Grants budget was spent and the role of the Technical Officer (High Hedges) post. In addition, the Portfolio Holder requested that the Cabinet consider the need for a specific budget to deal with specialist advice in respect of claims against the Council for subsidence to properties affected by preserved trees; whether a review should be undertaken of wildlife sites within the District; and sought authority for the Head of Planning and Economic Development to sign management agreements on behalf of Countrycare.

The Portfolio Holder reported that within the Conservation Policy budget, there had always been a specific sum to enable the Council to offer Historic Building Grants for repairs to listed buildings. The maximum possible grant of £1,000 had been the same for over fifteen years, and was now seen as only a token gesture towards the cost of repairs. There was also a new Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI 219), whereby the Council was required to produce both Character Appraisals and Management Plans for each of the twenty-five Conservation Areas. Thus, it had been proposed that the Conservation Grants budget be directed to the following priorities only: Conservation Area enhancement schemes identified in agreed Management Plans; and the repair of listed buildings in non-residential use, with priority given to any buildings on the “Buildings at Risk Register”. A further report would also be submitted to the Cabinet in April 2008, to review the success of the revised priorities.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that the Technical Officer (High Hedges) post had been agreed in March 2005 following the enactment of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, as part VIII of the Act empowered the Council to deal with neighbour disputes relating to high hedges. The post was originally agreed for an initial period of three years, however the officer appointed in July 2005 had left the Council in June 2006, and the post was currently vacant. In addition, following a review by Essex County Council of the Tree Preservation Orders (TPO’s) that it administered, it seemed likely that either the County TPO’s would be revoked or the County Council would delegate administration to the District Councils. In any event, this would create significant additional workload for the Landscape Team.

The Portfolio Holder stated that when an application to fell a preserved tree was refused and the owner claimed that as a direct result of retaining the tree, underpinning of the property was then required, the Council could be liable for compensation. Claims were becoming increasingly common as Insurance Companies launched actions against the Council citing preserved trees as the cause of any subsidence of a property. The Council was now employing the services of consultant structural engineers to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

(Customer Services, Media, Communications and ICT Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/047/2006-07).

That, due to the deadline for the Single Non-Emergency Number submission to the Home Office not being compatible with the Cabinet cycle of meetings, the Customer Services, Media, Communications and ICT Portfolio Holder be authorised to make a Portfolio Decision on the final SNEN Essex Partnership proposal.

The Customer Services, Media, Communications and ICT Portfolio Holder presented a report to the Cabinet about the Essex Single Non Emergency Number (SNEN) Partnership. The Portfolio Holder reported that the Single Non Emergency Number was a new national service that would provide the public with direct access to community safety advice, information and action via a new three-digit number, 101. This would allow the emergency call services to handle genuine emergency incidents. The Cabinet had already agreed to support the Essex SNEN Partnership by participating in the Wave 2 ‘expression of interest’. The Home Office had subsequently accepted the Essex SNEN Partnerships’ ‘expression of interest’ and had awarded a £100,000 grant to the Partnership to develop a full proposal and implementation plan, for which the deadline was noon on 6 October 2006. If the final proposal was accepted then the SNEN service would be implemented across all Essex Local Authorities by June 2007.

The Portfolio Holder added that the Essex SNEN Partnership had established a Project Board to oversee the development of the proposals and implementation plan. However, as the deadline for submission was before the next available Cabinet meeting, it had proposed that the Portfolio Holder took the decision to agree the final proposal on behalf of the Cabinet by way of a Portfolio Holder Decision.

            RESOLVED:

That, due to the deadline for the Single Non-Emergency Number submission to the Home Office not being compatible with the Cabinet cycle of meetings, the Customer Services, Media, Communications and ICT Portfolio Holder be authorised to make a Portfolio Decision on the final SNEN Essex Partnership proposal.

Reasons for Decision:

All District Councils in Essex were attending the Single Non Emergency Number Essex Partnership project board meetings and all supported moving forward with a full Wave 2 proposal and implementation plan.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

None, the use of a Portfolio Holder Decision appeared to be the only viable option due to the schedule imposed by the Home Office.

(Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/048/2006-07).

(1)       That, following the asbestos removal works, the current position implementing the Civic Offices comfort cooling works during 2006/07 be noted; and

(2)       That further works to improve environmental conditions during the summer months by the provision of comfort cooling for the Civic Offices be deferred until March 2007.

The Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder presented a report regarding the further installation of Comfort Cooling within the Civic Offices as the next phase of the Environmental Improvements programme. The Portfolio Holder reported that the Health and Safety Forum in September 2003 had expressed concern over the high temperatures experienced by staff within the Civic Offices during the summer months, and had recommended the installation of comfort cooling throughout the complex. Much work had already been completed, however Legal Services, Housing Services and the Rear Extension had yet to have comfort cooling installed. It had been estimated that it would cost £150,000 to complete all the necessary works. There was already a budget allocation of £50,000 for 2006/07, and in order to complete the works by the end of 2007/08, the report had recommended a DDF supplementary estimate of £25,000 for 2006/07 and a DDF growth bid of £75,000 for 2007/08.

The Portfolio Holder added that the Cabinet’s concern with the potential cost of the Waste Management Contract had been noted, and in light of these concerns the Portfolio Holder was inclined to withdraw this report at the current time. The Cabinet felt that, as no works would be necessary before the summer of 2007, the report should be deferred until March 2007 when the likely cost of the Waste Management Contract should be clearer.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That, following the asbestos removal works, the current position implementing the Civic Offices comfort cooling works during 2006/07 be noted; and

(2)            That further works to improve environmental conditions during the summer months by the provision of comfort cooling for the Civic Offices be deferred until March 2007.

Reasons for Decision:

No further works would be necessary before the summer of 2007, thus with concerns over the possible cost of the Waste Management Contract, it was considered prudent to defer the report until March 2007.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To proceed as per the report and complete the works by the end of 2007/08, with a £25,000 DDF supplementary estimate for 2006/07, and a DDF growth bid of £75,000 for 2007/08.

To do nothing and accept that conditions would be uncomfortable for staff during the summer months.

To perform works in the worst affected parts of the building with the current budget provision of £50,000.

To undertake all works during the current municipal year, which would require a DDF supplementary estimate in the sum of £100,000 for 2006/07.

(Customer Services, Media, Communications and ICT Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/051/2006-07).

That the following recommendations of the Portfolio Holder Advisory Group on the Waste Management contract be agreed:

(a)       the fleet should remain the responsibility of the waste management service provider; and

(b)       the marketing of and responsibility for collected recyclables shall in principle remain with the waste management service provider, subject to a later review following the soft market testing exercise.

The Customer Services, Media, Communications and ICT Portfolio Holder presented a report concerning the Fleet and Recyclates aspects of the Waste Management Contract. The Portfolio Holder reported that the present Waste Management Contract had placed the responsibility for fleet provision and the marketing of recyclates with the waste management service provider. This had made the service provider responsible for any fleet failures, and had not exposed the Council to the vagaries of the recyclate market. The Portfolio Holder Advisory Group for the Waste Management Contract had concluded that the risks for both should remain with the service provider, but that the marketing of recyclates should be reconsidered following the soft market testing in order to examine if there was any financial advantage for the Council through adopting an alternative approach. It was necessary to take these decisions prior to the soft market testing, scheduled for 8 September 2006.

            RESOLVED:

That the following recommendations of the Portfolio Holder Advisory Group on the Waste Management contract be agreed:

(a)            the fleet should remain the responsibility of the waste management service provider; and

(b)            the marketing of and responsibility for collected recyclables shall in principle remain with the waste management service provider, subject to a later review following the soft market testing exercise.

Reasons for Decision:

The recommendation regarding the fleet was a continuation of the existing contractual arrangements. The ability of the Council to maintain the fleet when the previous contract had run into difficulties demonstrated that an emergency situation could be effectively managed.

In respect of the marketing of recyclates, the Council had in the past preferred to be risk adverse and let the waste management contractor take the risk. The Portfolio Holder Advisory Group felt that it would be prudent to remain so, although the situation should be reviewed following the soft market testing exercise.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

The Council to take responsibility for the maintenance of the fleet.

The Council to accept the risk for marketing recyclables.

(Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/041/2006-07).

(1)       That the latest four-year forecast of capital receipts be noted;

(2)       That, as at 31 March 2011, the currently predicted level of usable capital receipts of £15,765,000 be noted;

(3)       That the revised Capital Programme 2006/07 to 2010/11 be approved;

(4)       That, as quotations are still to be obtained for the proposed replacement Local Taxation and Benefits ICT system, this item has not yet been included in the programme;

(5)       That the revised payment to be made to Home Group Limited (Warden Housing) on completion of the legal agreements for the small-scale stock transfer of Wickfields, Chigwell in the sum of £790,000, which represented a saving of around £310,000 based upon the original budget estimate, be noted;

(6)       That the following be approved or, where necessary, be recommended to the Council for approval:

(a)       a supplementary capital estimate for 2006/07 in the sum of £15,500 for a waste compactor;

(b)       a supplementary capital estimate for 2006/07 in the sum of £8,000 for the car park upgrade works being carried out at Queen’s Road, Buckhurst Hill;

(c)        an increase of £65,000 on the Loughton High Road Town Centre Enhancement Scheme to be financed from Section 106 monies;

(d)       an increase of £33,000 within the Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio for a Countrycare replacement vehicle (£13,000) and accommodation improvements within Planning Services (£20,000);

(e)            virements within the HRA for 2006/07 in the sum of £566,000 to heating and rewiring projects and £88,000 to other planned maintenance from:

(i)         cost reflective repairs (£428,000);

(ii)            structural schemes (£120,000); and

(iii)            cyclical maintenance (£106,000);

(f)         a virement within the HRA for 2006/07 in the sum of £46,000 to Springfields Improvements out of the savings from the Wickfields stock transfer;

(7)       That the Head of Housing Services be authorised to buy-back the seven leasehold properties at Springfields at a cost of £596,000 made up of:

(a)            £550,000 within the existing Capital Programme; and

(b)       the virement of £46,000 agreed in resolution (6)(f) above;

(8)       That the financing of the additional £500,000 contribution to affordable housing approved by the Cabinet and consequent savings elsewhere in the Capital Programme be considered and identified as part of the Capital Strategy Review in October 2006;

(9)       That the estimated HRA expenditure of £5,081,000 to be spent on the authority’s own affordable housing and regeneration projects in 2006/07 be approved; and

(10)     That the Loughton High Road Town Centre Enhancement Scheme phases III and IV (estimated at £2,000,000) be considered as part of the Capital Strategy Review in October 2006.

The Finance, Performance Management and Corporate Support Services Portfolio Holder presented a report regarding the review of the Capital Programme 2006/07 to 2010/11. The Portfolio Holder advised the Cabinet that the Capital Programme would form the basis of the Capital Strategy to be presented at the next scheduled meeting of the Cabinet. The report had also considered the available funding and had forecasted that the level of usable Capital Receipts on 31 March 2011 would be £15,765,000.

The Portfolio Holder stated that schemes financed through the Youth Facilities Initiative had seen £55,000 allocated to 2005/06 carried forward to 2006/07, and it was anticipated that a further £21,000 would be carried forward into 2007/08. On 10 July 2006, the Cabinet had agreed to spend the capital allocation of the Planning Delivery Grant on a replacement vehicle for Countrycare (£13,000) and further accommodation work within Planning Services (£20,000). A further £15,500 had also been included in anticipation of approval for the purchase of a waste compactor for the Civic Offices. Since the previous review of the Capital Programme in February 2006, there had been two claims made against the General Capital Contingency: £25,000 to refurbish the Epping Drinking Fountain; and £10,000 to alleviate overheating in the Teaching Pool Gallery at Loughton Leisure Centre.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the inclusion of the Customer Services Transformation Programme would be reviewed as part of the Capital Strategy.  Additionally, no figures could be included for the replacement of the Local Taxation and Benefits ICT system as quotations had yet to be obtained. In respect of Loughton Leisure Centre, a further £44,000 had been carried forward to 2006/07 to meet some outstanding consultancy costs. The latest estimate for the cost of phase 2 of the Loughton High Road Town Centre Enhancement was £1,415,000, an increase of £65,000 on the original estimate. However, £156,000 of Section 106 monies had subsequently been received since the original estimate and it was proposed to meet the £65,000 shortfall from this funding. In order to complete the Town Centre Enhancement in Loughton High Road, a further two phases had been planned, estimated to cost £2,000,000. However there was no current allocation in the Capital Programme and it had been proposed to consider this issue as part of The Capital Strategy review in October 2006. An additional £8,000 had also been included in the Capital programme to complete the upgrading of the Queen’s Road Car Park in Buckhurst Hill.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that the previously agreed additional £500,000 contribution to affordable housing had not been identified through subsequent savings elsewhere in the Capital Programme. The additional £1.2million of Revenue Contributions to Capital Outlay (RCCO) agreed for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) over the next five years had now been allocated to various categories that had required increased expenditure. The financial status of the HRA would be closely monitored to ensure that these levels of RCCO were sustainable in the future. The progress of certain HRA schemes had been assessed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

(Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/052/2006-07).

(1)       That, as set out in the attached letter, the Council’s responses to the Panel’s report be endorsed concerning:

(a)       North Weald;

(b)            District housing and employment provision;

(c)        Harlow urban extensions and infrastructure;

(d)       Green Belt boundaries; and

(e)       Car use; and

(2)       That the attached letter be forwarded as soon as possible to:

(a)       The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government;

(b)       Local members of Parliament;

(c)        the Government Office for the East of England (GO-East);

(d)       The East of England Assembly; and

(e)            Copied to the following Councils:

(i)         Harlow Council;

(ii)            Brentwood Borough Council; and

(iii)       Essex County Council.

The Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder presented a report on the report of the Panel of Inspectors for the draft East of England Plan, and also tabled a draft letter illustrating the subject matter of the report. The Portfolio Holder informed the Cabinet that the Panel of Inspectors who had conducted the Examination in Public into the Draft East of England Plan had published their report at the end of June. The next stage was for the Secretary of State to consider the recommendations and to publish Proposed Changes, due out in November, for which there would be a further twelve-week consultation period.

The Portfolio Holder summarised that the Panel supported the case for greater housing numbers in the area but shared the Council’s reservations about job growth and infrastructure provision. Consequently, a more widespread distribution of growth amongst urban areas was recommended with less concentration in the Harlow area. Although Harlow was still regarded as a Key Centre for Development and Change, North Weald and Harlow North were recommended for deletion as growth locations. The Panel had accepted the Council’s argument that any development at North Weald would suffer from infrastructure deficits and would be commuter orientated, but had also applied the same arguments to the Harlow North development. However, the Panel had recommended the development of approximately 3,000 dwellings to the west and south of Harlow within the District, which was an increase on the Draft Plan’s proposal for 2,700 new dwellings, as well as further development to the east of Harlow between the town and the M11 motorway, with potentially some of this within the District.

The Portfolio Holder added that the other recommended policies for the District were based upon Green Belt restraint and urban regeneration, favouring development opportunities within built-up areas whilst also retaining and enhancing their distinctive characters. The number of radial public transport nodes within the District was highlighted in the context of reducing car use and increasing public transport use. Finally, the Panel identified an indicative job growth target of 12,000 for the District in combination with Brentwood.

The Portfolio Holder stated that there were many items within the report worthy of support, such as the deletion of North Weald as a development area, however there were also serious concerns regarding the proposed Harlow urban extensions, the scale of the proposed housing and job growth within the District, and the apparent departure from the previous assurances that any development would be infrastructure led, not commuter based. These issues had been highlighted in the draft letter of response.

The Leader of the Council further added that the Member of Parliament for Harlow and Roydon had already supported the draft letter of response, and that support from the District’s other two Members of Parliament was also anticipated. Harlow District Council had yet to complete their process of considering the Panel’s report, but it was hoped that their support for the Council’s response would also be forthcoming. The Head of Planning and Economic Development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.