Agenda, decisions and minutes

(a)        This meeting is to be webcast;

(b)            Members are reminded of the need to activate their microphones before speaking; and

(c)        the Chairman will read the following announcement:

“I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live to the Internet and will be capable of subsequent repeated viewing, with copies of the recording being made available for those that request it.

By being present at this meeting, it is likely that the recording cameras will capture your image and this will result in your image becoming part of the broadcast.

You should be aware that this may infringe your human and data protection rights. If you have any concerns then please speak to the Webcasting Officer.

Please could I also remind Members to activate their microphones before speaking.”

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

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) To declare interests in any item on this agenda.

(a)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor R Bassett declared a personal interest in agenda item 18, Desktop Hardware Upgrade. The Councillor had determined that his interest was not prejudicial and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the issue.

(b)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor J Philip declared a personal interest in agenda item 18, Desktop Hardware Upgrade. The Councillor had determined that his interest was not prejudicial and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the issue.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Cabinet held on 19 July 2010 (previously circulated).

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2010 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2010 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

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

There were no verbal reports received from the Portfolio Holders present.

To answer questions asked by members of the public after notice in accordance with the motion passed by the Council at its meeting on 19 February 2008 (minute 102 refers) on any matter in relation to which the Cabinet has powers or duties or which affects the District.

The following public question was asked by Mr D Windrow:

“My name is David Windrow from Ambleside and my attendance here tonight concerns parking and road safety.

I think I am speaking on behalf of most of the residents in Hemnall Ward and specifically Ambleside, Greentrees, Kendal Avenue and the side roads off Bower Hill.

I have a question to table directed at EFDC and ECC Highways and that question is, what is going on with the Parking Review ?

This review was started over 5 years ago. Finally in May of 2009, Consultation Proposals and Schematics were published and many residents responded. As far as I am aware, the majority in Hemnall Ward supported the overall proposals and some asked for more Residents’ Parking Bays which of course generate revenue for the Council.

Since then we have heard nothing, 16 months and it was supposed to be implemented by end 2009.

We have been informed that there were schematic errors, measurement errors and that the Consultation Proposals were not properly Gazetted and that consequently it will have to be done again.

However, whilst it is appreciated that doing this again, properly, will involve costs at a difficult time, why should the residents of Epping, particularly those in the area around Epping Station be subjected to considerable inconvenience, environmental disturbance in residential streets and sometimes conflict with parkers, because of ECC bureaucratic errors and inefficiency. If a mistake was made, somebody in ECC should pay for it.

In recent months commuter parking has been getting far worse and something has to be done. The Olympics are only 18 months away and if nothing is done by then, it will be mayhem. It is now quite common for commuters to park up at 11 a.m. and stay all day, many not leaving until late at night or leaving their cars for 24 hours. The only respite we get is when there is a tube strike.

The parking in Stonards Hill is an absolute disgrace. Many people and families with young children use the recreation area and there is no Pedestrian Crossing which there should be because this road is a rat run and the speed limit is seldom observed.

Finally, due to poor road signage, there are four dangerous junctions in Epping which over the last few years, I and others have written to ECC Highways about and we have been totally ignored, nothing has been done.

These junctions are made worse by the parking problems. The junctions concerned, in order of priority are Hemnall Street and Kendal Avenue, Hemnall Street and Clay Lane, the West end of Hemnall St at the High Rd junction and the Stonards Hill and Theydon Grove junction. Why are we being ignored ? We use these junctions and know what the problems are.

The local Neighbourhood Action Panel (I am a member) has discussed these issues several times but it appears powerless to get anything done and it is not for the want of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

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 presented a report of its meeting held on 13 September 2010, when the following items of business were considered.

(i)         A presentation from the Chief Executive Officer of Connect Plus, the company contracted to maintain the M25, and who were spending the equivalent of £1million per day on remedial works. The Committee noted that the Government was considering proposals to turn the Dartford Crossing into a managed motorway with a free flowing tolling section.

(ii)        A call-in on the Cabinet’s decision to suspend the construction of a new Sports Hall at Waltham Abbey; after a lengthy debate, the original decision was upheld.

(iii)       Consultation papers on ‘Policing in the 21^st Century’ and ‘Rebalancing the Licensing Act’, following their consideration by the Safer Cleaner Greener Scrutiny Panel.

Leader of the Council) To consider the minutes from the recent meeting of the Local Development Framework Cabinet Committee held on 13 July 2010 and any recommendations therein.

(1)        That the minutes of the Local Development Framework Cabinet Committee held on 13 July 2010 be noted.

The Leader of the Council presented the minutes from the meeting of the Local Development Framework Cabinet Committee held on 13 July 2010. The issues considered by the Cabinet Committee had included: an update on the proposed changes to the Planning System; the Town Centres Study undertaken by Roger Tym & Partners; and the Local Development Framework Engagement Study.

In response to questions from the Members present, the Portfolio Holder for Legal & Estates confirmed that there was interest from large retailers for the proposed retail park scheme at Langston Road, which it was hoped would also be of benefit to the local traders in Loughton Broadway. The term ‘Arthouse Cinema’ used in the report most likely referred to the size of the venue as opposed to the type of films that would be shown. The Cabinet was also provided with an update on the progress of the Waltham Abbey Town Plan, which was scheduled for publication before the end of the year.

Decision:

(1)        That the minutes of the Local Development Framework Cabinet Committee held on 13 July 2010 be noted.

Reasons for Decision:

The Cabinet were satisfied that the Cabinet Committee had fully addressed all the relevant issues in relation to the recommendations and that these should be endorsed.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

The Cabinet were satisfied that the Cabinet Committee had considered all the relevant options in formulating their recommendations. The Cabinet did not consider that there were any further options.

(Finance & Economic Development Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-020-2010/11).

(1)        That the transfer of the non-housing assets, as listed in Appendix 1 of the report, to the General Fund be recommended to the Council for approval at its meeting scheduled for 2 November 2010;

(2)        That authority be delegated to the Director of Finance & ICT to write to the Secretary of State to request permission for the transfer of the properties listed in Appendix 1 of the report from the Housing Revenue Account to the General Fund; and

(3)        That the Housing and Finance & Performance Management Scrutiny Panels be requested to hold a joint meeting to consider the proposed transfer and to provide its views and recommendations on the proposals to the Council on 2 November 2010.

A report upon the transfer of non-housing assets within the Housing Revenue Account to the General Fund was presented by the Portfolio Holder for Finance & Economic Development.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that within the prospectus for the disassembling of the Housing Subsidy System there had been an emphasis that the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) should remain a ring-fenced account and should still primarily be a landlord account, containing the income and expenditure arising from a housing authority’s landlord functions. Many commercial properties had been transferred from the former Greater London Council and had been placed in the HRA. These assets were currently held as investment properties, and the HRA received rental income on these shops, public houses and a petrol station. The transfer of the non-housing assets to the General Fund would result in additional rental income to the General Fund but, because of the mechanism for setting rents, would not cause rents for tenants to increase. Amended versions of the five and thirty year forecasts for the HRA had been produced. The five year forecast still had a balance of just under £4 million for the HRA at the end of 2014/15. However, the amended thirty year forecast indicated that, without a savings or efficiency programme, the HRA would fall into deficit in year 12, compared to year 28 in the previous forecast.

The Cabinet then received a representation from the Vice-Chairman of the Council’s Tenants & Leaseholders Federation, the main points of which was as follows:

(i)         The list of non-housing assets currently within the HRA had been valued at £15.5million, which appeared very low. The Federation felt that the Council should have an up-to-date valuation of the properties provided before the matter was considered further and a decision made.

(ii)        Some important pieces of information had not yet become available, such as the outcome of the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review or the review of the financing arrangements for Housing Revenue Accounts. Any decision should be postponed until all the relevant information had become available.

(iii)       The transfer would have a detrimental impact upon the quality of housing services provided to tenants, particularly from year 12 onwards, and the Council would find it more difficult to set rents below the restructuring level.

(iv)       The report had stated that there were no equalities issues with the proposed transfer; however as Council tenants were disproportionately among the equalities groups, they would be disproportionately affected.

A petition was handed in by the Vice-Chairman of the Federation calling upon the Council not to proceed with the proposed transfer.

The Housing Portfolio Holder reiterated the comments of the Federation and added that the current economic situation would necessitate savings being required across all budgets. The Portfolio Holder could not support the proposals, due to the effects upon the Account in year 12 of the forecast, and the estimated reduction in the HRA’s capital programme, which would affect tenants and leaseholders in Year 11.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance & Economic Development responded that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

(Finance & Economic Development Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-021-2010/11).

(1)        That, provided they have not moved home, those residents who originally objected to the application for a determination as to whether prior approval was required for the erection of a mobile phone mast be paid a further and final sum of £250 as compensation;

(2)        That the residents of the properties marked on the map attached at Appendix 1 of the report be also offered compensation in the sum of £250, subject to the following conditions:

(a)        they were resident in their property when the mast was erected;

(b)        they have not moved from their home since the mast was erected; and

(c)        they have not previously received compensation from the Council in respect of this matter; and

(3)        That the compensation offered be without prejudice and as an apology for the failure of the Council to deal with the application for the mast in a timely manner.

The Leader of the Council presented a report upon the claim for compensation by local residents following the erection of a telecoms mast in Honey Lane. Waltham Abbey.

The Leader reminded the Cabinet that the Council failed to decide upon, in 2006, an application for a determination as to whether prior approval was required for the erection of a mobile phone mast.  The consequence of the decision was that the mast gained deemed planning permission and was subsequently erected despite the Council raising objections to its siting and design. The lawfulness of the mast and options for using planning enforcement powers to seek its removal had been explored and, following consideration of a report on 4 August 2009, the District Development Control Committee agreed there was no reasonable prospect of securing a better solution on the ground.

The Leader stated that the residents who had originally objected to the mast had been paid £250 each as a goodwill gesture by the Council prior to the District Development Control Committee’s decision. Members were now requested to consider whether any further compensation should be paid to residents for the Council’s failure to issue a timely decision on the original prior approval application and the consequences which arose from that failure. Various options for compensation had been discussed and the preferred option of Officers had been recommended.

The Portfolio Holder for Operation Planning & Transport, who represented the High Beach ward in Waltham Abbey, observed that the report was only proposing to compensate those residents who had originally objected to the Council about the erection of the mast, not the residents who either did not object or who objected through other channels but were still affected. It was felt to be reasonable to offer compensation of £250 to all the affected residents, i.e. the 71 properties highlighted on the map attached to the report.

The Director for Planning & Economic Development stated that he had experience of losing planning appeals against mobile phone masts, as the operators had considerable powers to erect such masts. The Council’s procedures had since been reviewed and the Director apologised for those residents that had been affected. The Director of Corporate Support Services reminded the Cabinet that the Council would not be accepting liability, the compensation would be an apology to residents for failing to deal with the application in a timely manner.

The Cabinet agreed to compensate the other affected residents, from the 71 properties highlighted in the report, provided that they were in residence when the mast was erected, they had not moved from their home since the mast was erected, and they had not previously received any compensation from the Council in respect of this matter.

Decision:

(1)        That, provided they have not moved home, those residents who originally objected to the application for a determination as to whether prior approval was required for the erection of a mobile phone mast be paid a further and final sum of £250 as compensation;

(2)        That the residents  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-022-2010/11).

(1)        That the previously agreed Open Market Shared Ownership (OMSO) Scheme be piloted in 2010/11 but with Broxbourne Housing Association (BHA) instead of Moat, and operated in the manner previously agreed by the Cabinet subject to the following changes:

            (a)        applicants of the Scheme also be allowed to purchase two- bedroomed houses;

            (b)        the maximum property purchase price be increased to £210,000;

            (c)        the purchased property to be of modern construction, either            brick/block or brick/timber cavity construction;

            (d)        applicants also be allowed to purchase a property in Hertfordshire, or         a London Borough immediately neighbouring the Epping Forest District;

            (e)        if the Scheme is subsequently extended to a Phase 2 then BHA’s   marketing, legal and administration costs be reduced from £2,500 to        £2,000 for phase 2; and

            (f)         if the scheme is over-prescribed then priority be given to those        applicants seeking to purchase the cheapest properties;

(2)        That the Director of Housing and the Director of Corporate Support Services be authorised to agree the detail of the scheme and the necessary legal agreements;

(3)        That the Pilot Scheme be funded from the £435,000 payment received by the Council from McCarthy & Stone to fund affordable housing within the District (in accordance with the Section 106 Agreement for its recently completed development in Epping) in order to fund 8 shared ownership properties, and budget provision be made accordingly within the Housing Capital Programme for 2010/11;

(4)        That the existing budget of £350,000 for the OMSO Scheme within the Housing Capital Programme for 2010/11 be carried forward to 2011/12;

(5)        That the success of the Pilot Scheme be reviewed by the Housing Portfolio Holder upon completion; and

(6)        That the Housing Portfolio Holder be authorised to extend the OMSO Scheme into a Phase 2 in 2011/12, if considered appropriate, to provide a further 6 shared ownership properties, utilising the £350,000 budget provision.

The Housing Portfolio Holder presented a report about the Open Market Shared Ownership Scheme.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that it had previously agreed to pilot an innovative Open Market Shared Ownership (OMSO) Scheme to enable housing applicants on the Council’s Housing Register to get on the home ownership ladder, and select a property on the open market that they would like to purchase on a shared ownership basis. The Housing Association that the Council had previously agreed to operate the Scheme with was no longer interested.  However, following discussions with a number of other housing associations, Broxbourne Housing Association had expressed an interest to work in partnership with the Council to introduce the Scheme.  A small number of changes to the previously-agreed Scheme had been proposed, to enlarge the scope of the scheme and make it more attractive to applicants.

The Portfolio Holder added that, following a capital receipt from a developer under a Section 106 Agreement, it was proposed to fund the pilot scheme this year from this capital receipt to assist eight applicants. It was further proposed that, on completion of the Pilot Scheme, consideration should be given to extending the scheme next year, funded from the existing budget for the scheme. It was confirmed that , where successful applicants for the scheme were existing Council tenants, they would vacate Council properties, which would then be available for subsequent release to other applicants on the Council’s housing waiting list, in accordance with the terms of the Housing Allocations Scheme.

Decision:

(1)        That the previously agreed Open Market Shared Ownership (OMSO) Scheme be piloted in 2010/11 but with Broxbourne Housing Association (BHA) instead of Moat, and operated in the manner previously agreed by the Cabinet subject to the following changes:

            (a)        applicants of the Scheme also be allowed to purchase two- bedroomed houses;

            (b)        the maximum property purchase price be increased to £210,000;

            (c)        the purchased property to be of modern construction, either            brick/block or brick/timber cavity construction;

            (d)        applicants also be allowed to purchase a property in Hertfordshire, or         a London Borough immediately neighbouring the Epping Forest District;

            (e)        if the Scheme is subsequently extended to a Phase 2 then BHA’s   marketing, legal and administration costs be reduced from £2,500 to        £2,000 for phase 2; and

            (f)         if the scheme is over-prescribed then priority be given to those        applicants seeking to purchase the cheapest properties;

(2)        That the Director of Housing and the Director of Corporate Support Services be authorised to agree the detail of the scheme and the necessary legal agreements;

(3)        That the Pilot Scheme be funded from the £435,000 payment received by the Council from McCarthy & Stone to fund affordable housing within the District (in accordance with the Section 106 Agreement for its recently completed development in Epping) in order to fund 8 shared ownership properties, and budget provision be made accordingly within the Housing Capital Programme for 2010/11;

(4)        That the existing budget of £350,000 for the OMSO Scheme within the Housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

(Finance & Economic Development Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-029-2010/11).

(1)        That the amended 2010/11 Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Investment Strategy 2010/11 to 2012/13 be recommended to the Council for approval;

(2)        That the deletion of the local performance indicator on investment returns be recommended to the Council for approval; and

(3)        That the Treasury Management Prudential Indicators for 2010/11 to 2012/13 be noted.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance & Economic Development presented a report concerning the revision of the Council’s Treasury Management and Investment Strategies for the period 2010-13. The Treasury Management Strategy and Prudential Indicators were last approved in February 2010, however, the Council had changed its treasury advisors in May and the Treasury Strategy had been revised, in line with advice from the new treasury advisors, Arlingclose.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that the original strategy had had separate minimum criteria for credit-rated counterparties for investments up to £5million and £10million; there would now only be one limit in the revised strategy up to £10million. The minimum required credit score had been reduced for investments up to £10million when compared against the original rating, but increased against the original rating for investments up to £5million. This had resulted in a number of counter-parties being removed from the Council’s list. The maximum investment in a non-UK country had been increased from 10% of the portfolio (approximately £5million) to £10million. A new investment product had also been added to the strategy, the purchasing of bonds issued by multilateral development banks, with a limit of £10million and a maximum maturity of 10 years.

The Portfolio Holder added that the Council had a local performance indicator for measuring the Council’s performance for average rate of interest earned against the 7-day London inter-bank rate (LIBID). Following the changes in the Treasury Management Code of Practice, and the new focus upon security and yield, the treasury outturn report would continue to report the Council’s performance against the LIBID, but not set a target for Officers to achieve. No changes to the other Prudential Indicators had been recommended. The strategies would be considered by the Audit and Governance Committee on 20 September 2010 prior to its final approval by the Council on 28 September 2010.

In response to questions form Members, the Principal Accountant stated that most of the Council’s current investments were for a period of less than 1 year, however the Council would consider longer investment terms when market conditions improved. The Director of Finance & ICT was thanked for the recent Treasury Management training that had been organised for the benefit of Members.

Decision:

(1)        That the amended 2010/11 Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Investment Strategy 2010/11 to 2012/13 be recommended to the Council for approval;

(2)        That the deletion of the local performance indicator on investment returns be recommended to the Council for approval; and

(3)        That the Treasury Management Prudential Indicators for 2010/11 to 2012/13 be noted.

Reasons for Decision:

To align the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy and Investment Strategy with the views of the new treasury advisors, Arlingclose.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

Members could ask for additional information about the Treasury Management Strategy, or not recommend the revised strategy to the Council for approval.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-024-2010/11).

(1)        That, as recommended by the Housing Scrutiny Panel, the proposed Housing Strategy Key Action Plan 2010/11 – attached to the report at Appendix 1– be adopted.

The Housing Portfolio Holder presented a report proposing a new Key Action Plan for 2010/11 in accordance with the Housing Strategy 2009-12, which had been considered by the Housing Scrutiny Panel and was recommended for approval by the Cabinet.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the Cabinet had adopted the current Housing Strategy in September 2009. The strategy assessed the District’s current and future housing needs, and detailed the Council’s approach to meeting those needs. The strategy also linked to other Council and non-Council strategies, which both influenced and were influenced by the Housing Strategy. The original Key Action Plan set out the proposed actions to be taken by the Council for the first year to contribute towards the achievement of the objectives within the Strategy, and was to be updated on an annual basis for approval by the Cabinet. An updated Action Plan had been considered by the Housing Scrutiny Panel in July 2010 and had been recommended to the Cabinet for adoption.

The Director of Housing reported that the areas of land mentioned under item 9 of the Action Plan for possible development of affordable housing were all relatively small areas, of which some comprised garages that had proved difficult to let. The Director also explained that the discontinuation of the glossy freesheet advertising vacant Council properties was still subject to consultation with the Council’s partners in the HomeOption scheme. The freesheet was expensive to produce and approximately 90% of the expressions of interest for vacancies were made on-line; however the Director acknowledged that the freesheet was useful for those applicants without internet access. The freesheet was not sent to all tenants but distributed via various outlets throughout the District. The Portfolio Holder added that the Council’s Homelessness Prevention Service was very successful, and that the planned review of funding would be the subject of a report to Cabinet in due course.

Decision:

(1)        That, as recommended by the Housing Scrutiny Panel, the proposed Housing Strategy Key Action Plan 2010/11 – attached to the report at Appendix 1– be adopted.

Reasons for Decision:

The Housing Strategy 2009-12 included a Key Action Plan, which the Cabinet had previously agreed should be updated each year for the duration of the Housing Strategy.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To not agree the latest Key Action Plan, or to propose different actions.

(Legal & Estates Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-025-2010/11).

(1)        That the right of pre-emption in respect of the land shown edged thick black on Plan A (attached at Appendix 1 of the report) and edged thick black on Plan C (attached at Appendix 3 of the report), which are part of Epping Forest College, be recommended to the Council for unconditional release; 

(2)        That the full release of the covenant which restricts the use of the land shown edged thick black on Plan A, in return for a side-letter or words in the deed of release with respect to the College providing replacement sports facilities when their funding situation allowed, be recommended to the Council for approval;

(3)        That the delegation of authority to the Director of Corporate Support Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Legal and Estates, to negotiate any reasonable variation to the covenant restricting the use of the land shown edged thick black on Plan C be recommended to the Council for approval; and

(4)        That the delegation of authority to the Director of Corporate Support Services to agree minor variations to the new covenants, as required, be recommended to the Council for approval.

The Portfolio Holder for Legal & Estates presented a report upon the release of certain restrictive covenants at Epping Forest College in Loughton.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the Council had previously agreed the variation of the restrictive covenants and the release of the right of pre-emption in respect of the Loughton Hall Site, which previously had formed part of the College site. These same provisions affected the land which adjoined the Loughton Hall. The College now wished to sell this land and had requested that the current restrictions on use be changed to allow residential care or nursing home development and/or an education use.  The College had also asked that the Council’s option to purchase the land at full market value (a right of pre?emption) each time the property was sold be released.  The College authorities had stated that they intended to provide sports facilities on a different area of land owned by the College at Borders Lane, and that the local community would have access, when funding became available.

The Portfolio Holder added that the covenant could be released without replacement, or authority could be delegated to the Portfolio Holder, however concerns had previously been expressed by the Members of Area Plans Sub-Committee South about the possible release of the covenant. The report had also suggested the release of the covenant in return for a side-letter or words in the deed of release about the College providing sporting facilities in the future when funding allowed.

Local Ward Members welcomed the suggestion of a side-letter in return for the release of the covenant, and urged the Cabinet to also release the Council’s right of pre-emption. The Portfolio Holder offered a revised recommendation whereby the Covenant would be released in return for a side-letter or words in the deed of release. Authority was also delegated to the Director of Corporate Support Services to agree minor variations to the legal documents so as not to unduly delay the process.

Decision:

(1)        That the right of pre-emption in respect of the land shown edged thick black on Plan A (attached at Appendix 1 of the report) and edged thick black on Plan C (attached at Appendix 3 of the report), which are part of Epping Forest College, be recommended to the Council for unconditional release; 

(2)        That the full release of the covenant which restricts the use of the land shown edged thick black on Plan A, in return for a side-letter or words in the deed of release with respect to the College providing replacement sports facilities when their funding situation allowed, be recommended to the Council for approval;

(3)        That the delegation of authority to the Director of Corporate Support Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Legal and Estates, to negotiate any reasonable variation to the covenant restricting the use of the land shown edged thick black on Plan C be recommended to the Council for approval; and

(4)        That the delegation of authority to the Director of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

(Safer & Greener Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-026-2010/11).

(1)        That, following consideration by the Safer, Cleaner, Greener Scrutiny Standing Panel and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the CCTV Delivery Plan and associated Code of Practice be adopted.

The Safer & Greener Portfolio Holder presented a report regarding the adoption of the CCTV Service Delivery Plan and Code of Practice.

The Portfolio Holder explained that the CCTV Delivery Plan was a strategy for CCTV within the District for the next three to five years.  It had outlined a programme of installations and maintenance for systems within the District and highlighted the associated resource implications. It also sought to bring together under one management area most of the Council’s public facing CCTV systems within the Safer Communities Unit in the Environment & Street Scene Directorate. The associated Code of Practice was important since it described, in accordance with national standards and accepted best practice, how CCTV would be managed and used within the District to ensure the safety of the data collected and the maintenance of public confidence in the systems.

The Portfolio Holder added that CCTV footage was relied upon in court as evidence, and also helped to reduce anti-social behaviour within the District. The Council would also be happy to advise other CCTV providers within the District, based upon the principles contained within the Delivery Plan and Code of Practice.

Decision:

(1)        That, following consideration by the Safer, Cleaner, Greener Scrutiny Standing Panel and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the CCTV Delivery Plan and associated Code of Practice be adopted.

Reasons for Decision:

To ensure the effective use of CCTV within the District, that it provided usable evidence for the police and other authorised enforcement agencies, and was managed in accordance with national and best practice standards.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To not have a planned approach to the installation and maintenance of CCTV;

To not have CCTV under one management umbrella within the Council; or

To not operate CCTV systems in accordance with national standards and accepted best practice.

However, none of these options could be recommended for consideration if public confidence in CCTV was to be retained and the CCTV equipment was to be relied upon to provide credible and usable imagery for use in criminal investigations.

(Safer & Greener Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-027-2010/11).

(1)        That the proposed re-structure for Countrycare, by deleting one Assistant Countryside Manager post and creating an additional Countryside Assistant post thereby fortifying the project implementation tier of the team and allowing for the further extension of the volunteer programme, be agreed; and

(2)        That Countrycare’s intention to extend its volunteering and public engagement programme be noted.

A report upon the proposed restructure of the Countrycare service was presented by the Safer & Greener Portfolio Holder.

The Portfolio Holder reported that there was an opportunity to review the structure of Countrycare given the current vacancies, the coalition Government’s localism agenda and the need to improve work efficiency including consideration of  changing service delivery requirements. The current grading of the Countryside Manager was lower than that of other team leaders across the Council and it was thought that a formal review of the role’s job description and grade would be appropriate. The position was currently vacant and the process would be completed prior to advertising the vacancy. It was proposed to restructure the team by deleting one of the vacant Assistant Countryside Manager posts and creating an additional Countryside Assistant post in its stead. This would result in a Continuing Services Budget saving of £12,700 per annum (9.2%).

The Portfolio Holder added that one of the key objectives of the service was to involve local communities in all aspects of Countrycare’s work and extend the already popular volunteering programme. The District already had the Epping Forest Conservation Volunteers, which relied on the existing volunteer resource, but existing volunteer time was already stretched. The emphasis for the future would be to broaden the existing volunteer base for Countrycare projects, engaging more residents and ensuring a minimum of two volunteer hours per week.

The Cabinet felt that Countrycare performed a very important service for both the Council and the District, and that the volunteer programme ensured the completion of projects which the Council could not afford. It was noted that Countrycare had performed a vital role during the restoration and remediation project at the former landfill site in Bobbingworth. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that all staff in Countrycare would have access to any relevant health and safety training.

Decision:

(1)        That the proposed re-structure for Countrycare, by deleting one Assistant Countryside Manager post and creating an additional Countryside Assistant post thereby fortifying the project implementation tier of the team and allowing for the further extension of the volunteer programme, be agreed; and

(2)        That Countrycare’s intention to extend its volunteering and public engagement programme be noted.

Reasons for Decision:

To ensure that the Council and District continued to benefit from a well structured Countryside Management team, which delivered high quality countryside management projects, as well as public information and advice services.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To retain the existing Countrycare structure.

(Environment Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-028-2010/11).

(1)        That the completion of the works for the restoration and remediation of the Bobbingworth former landfill site be noted;

(2)        That the commencement of the seven-year after care maintenance agreement by Veolia Environmental Limited be noted;

(3)        That the final account for the project be noted;

(4)        That the estimated capital saving of £38,000 be retained within the project budget;

(5)        That a further report be submitted outlining the estimated savings in ongoing revenue maintenance costs by retaining and utilising the capital savings, for example by purchase  of maintenance equipment; and

(6)        That the Environment Portfolio Holder be authorised to consult on and agree the membership and terms of reference for the Local Liaison Group previously agreed.

The Environment Portfolio Holder presented a report upon the Final Account for the restoration and remediation project at the former landfill site in Bobbingworth.

The Portfolio Holder stated that the target price agreed with Veolia for construction and design of the scheme had been £2,079,159; the final account had now been completed and the total payable to Veolia was £2,110,102, which was £30,943 over budget. In accordance with the terms of the contract, this overspend was to be shared equally between the Council and Veolia, reducing the total payable by the Council to £2,094,630 including the £20,000 for tree planting. It was also a requirement of the consent for the District Council to pay the County Council for the repair of any damage to the local highways caused by the lorry movements. The final assessment of the damage was £6,411 – which was significantly less than the £60,000 set aside by the Council. A separate sum of £37,653 had also been paid to the County Council as a Deposit Fee under the Section 278 agreement. The County Council had now returned 90% of the Deposit Fee, with the remainder due for release at the end of the 12 month maintenance period.

The Portfolio Holder added that all of the construction works had been completed barring a few items, which had been estimated to cost £41,000 to complete. It was proposed that Council Officers complete these outstanding works from within the existing budget allocation, without the need to delay completion of the Final Account. It was noted that costs would be higher if these minor works were completed by Veolia, mainly due to their 15% handling costs, design and supervision fees. With the formal completion of the project, the Cabinet was requested to note the commencement of the seven year after-care maintenance agreement by Veolia.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that the total approved budget for the scheme had been £2,492,000, excluding the £20,000 from Essex County Council for tree planting. Total expenditure so far had been £2,413,000, a shortfall of £78,000. Allowing for the remaining works estimated to cost £41,000, there would a saving of £38,000. It was proposed to retain this saving within the project budget and submit a further report outlining how the use of this money to purchase maintenance equipment would enable the Council to make further revenue savings on the maintenance budget in future years.

The Portfolio Holder concluded that the Cabinet had earlier resolved to form a local advisory group to assist with the on-going management of the site. The group would offer advice and assist with activities such as applications for funding and other local community participation events, but would not have any decision making powers. The Cabinet was requested to authorise the Portfolio Holder to consult upon, and agree both the membership of the group as well as its terms of reference.

In response to questions from the Members present, the Portfolio Holder reported that no decisions had been made over the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

(Legal & Estates Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-030-2010/11).

(1)        That the replacement of all desktop hardware over five years old be agreed;

(2)        That the continued use of Thin Client Technology (TCT), involving a low-end computer terminal to access ICT functionality held on a centrally based server, be endorsed to allow a cheaper and more manageable desktop solution; and

(3)        That a leasing option be included in any invitation to quote from the Buying Solutions network.

The Portfolio Holder for Legal & Estates presented a report concerning the proposed desktop hardware update.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the Council had a large number of personal computers and laptops that were over 4 years old; the industry recognised lifespan for hardware reliability was 4 years. These units were now becoming unreliable and costly to repair and maintain and, in line with the current strategy, it was proposed to replace the obsolete units with Thin Client Terminals. The purchase price of such terminals was less than half than that of a personal computer, and the ease of support as well as the reduced power consumption made the total cost of ownership far lower in comparison with a personal computer. It was estimated that the cost of replacing personal computers with terminals would be £23,000 in 2010/11 and £26,000 in 2011/12.

The Assistant Director (ICT) added that the Council obtained a discount through purchasing equipment via the Essex On-Line Partnership, but a leasing option could also be included in any invitation to quote issued through the Buying Solutions network.

Decision:

(1)        That the replacement of all desktop hardware over five years old be agreed;

(2)        That the continued use of Thin Client Technology (TCT), involving a low-end computer terminal to access ICT functionality held on a centrally based server, be endorsed to allow a cheaper and more manageable desktop solution; and

(3)        That a leasing option be included in any invitation to quote from the Buying Solutions network.

Reasons for Decision:

The maintenance of unreliable equipment was not cost effective for the Council, in terms of repair costs, ICT support and user productivity loss. The cost of thin client terminals were much less than personal computers.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To replace the Council’s personal computers as they failed with new personal computers, but this would not be cost effective either.

(Performance Management Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-031-2010/11).

(1)        That, as requested by the Joint Consultative Committee, the proposed Asbestos Policy attached at Appendix 1 of the report be adopted by the Council; and

(2)        That, as requested by the Joint Consultative Committee, the proposed Stress Policy attached at Appendix 2 of the report be adopted by the Council.

The Portfolio Holder for Performance Management presented a report upon the review of the Council’s Stress and Asbestos Policies.

The Portfolio Holder reported that a number of the Council’s health and safety policies were being reviewed and amended where necessary. The Asbestos and Stress policies were the first to be reviewed. There had been some minor amendments to the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, and the Council’s policy had been updated to reflect this. Both policies had been considered by the Corporate Safety Team and the Joint Consultative Committee, and were recommended for adoption.

Decision:

(1)        That, as requested by the Joint Consultative Committee, the proposed Asbestos Policy attached at Appendix 1 of the report be adopted by the Council; and

(2)        That, as requested by the Joint Consultative Committee, the proposed Stress Policy attached at Appendix 2 of the report be adopted by the Council.

Reasons for Decision:

The introduction of, and regular review and update, of the Council’s health and safety policies ensured that the Council complied with relevant health and safety legislation as well as best practice. The policies had been considered by the Council’s Joint Consultative Committee, who had recommended their adoption to the Cabinet.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To not agree the implementation of the reviewed policies or request that the policies were further reviewed.

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 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.

(1)        That the Constitution & Member Services Scrutiny Panel be requested to examine the current Executive Procedure Rules within the Council’s Constitution requiring all business not concluded by 10.00pm to stand referred to the next meeting or voted upon without debate.

The Housing Portfolio Holder queried the Cabinet procedures quoted on the front of the agenda, stipulating that any business not completed by 10.00pm would – at the discretion of the Chairman – stand referred to the next meeting or be voted upon without debate.

The Acting Chief Executive stated that the reports on the agenda had ranked on this occasion, with the reports thought to be major items of business considered first. It was suggested that the Constitution & Member Services Scrutiny Panel could be requested to examine these Cabinet procedures if Members wished to consider alternatives to the current measures.

Decision:

(1)        That the Constitution & Member Services Scrutiny Panel be requested to examine the current Executive Procedure Rules within the Council’s Constitution requiring all business not concluded by 10.00pm to stand referred to the next meeting or voted upon without debate.

Reasons for Decision:

To allow the Cabinet to consider and debate all items of business on its agenda for a particular meeting.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To retain the current procedures requiring all Cabinet meetings to end shortly after 10.00pm.

Exclusion

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

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

Confidential Items Commencement

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

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

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

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

Background Papers

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda                                                                                   Exempt Info

Item No           Subject                                                           Paragraph No

22                    Local Land Charges – Access to                               3

                        Environmental Information

RESOLVED:

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

Agenda                                                                                   Exempt Info

Item No           Subject                                                           Paragraph No

22                    Local Land Charges – Access to                               3

                        Environmental Information

(Legal & Estates Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-023-2010/11).

(1)        That the likely loss of income from future personal searches together with the potential for claims for the refund of fees already paid for personal searches undertaken since 1 April 2005 as a result of the Local Land Charges (Amendment) Rules 2010, which came into force on 17 August 2010 and revoked the right to charge, be noted;

(2)        That a further possible financial impact on the Council if the Government decides the replies to enquiries raised on the CON29R search enquiry form for both personal and official searches should also be provided free of charge under the Environmental Information Regulations be noted;

(3)        That a further report be made to a future meeting of the Cabinet, identifying options for the mitigation of any shortfall in income arising from the changed fee regime in respect of personal and CON29R search enquiries;

(4)        That, with immediate effect, personal searches be carried out in the manner specified within the report, in order to:

(a)        reduce the time spent by staff facilitating the provision of this service for which a charge can no longer be made; and

(b)        to avoid potential claims for incomplete information

(5)        That a further review be undertaken as to how the Council’s statutory responsibilities in relation to local land charge searches could be performed cost effectively;

(6)        That, in accordance with the recommendations of the Local Government Association, the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive be authorised to write to the relevant Government departmentsto advise them of the anticipated loss of income and additional administrative costs arising from the revocation of the personal search fee, and to seek assurances of Government assistance in that regard; and

(6)        That the sum of £300 be contributed to a fund administered by the Local Government Association to obtain advice on an alternative charging regime for personal and CON29R search enquiries.

The Portfolio Holder for Legal & Estates presented a restricted report upon access to environmental information in respect of Local Land Charges.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the Information Commissioner’s Office had recently published guidance stating that, in its opinion, the majority of information provided by local authorities in response to property search enquiries was likely to be regarded as environmental information, and that charges should only be raised in accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. This guidance was likely to have significant financial implications for the Council, through the inability to continue to charge for access to the Local Land Charges Register.

The Portfolio Holder also informed the Cabinet that guidance had been received from the Local Government Association regarding this matter, which it was recommended for the Council to follow. In addition, the Cabinet was requested to agree to contribute £300 to a fund administered by the Local Government Association to obtain advice on alternative charging regimes.

Decision:

(1)        That the likely loss of income from future personal searches together with the potential for claims for the refund of fees already paid for personal searches undertaken since 1 April 2005 as a result of the Local Land Charges (Amendment) Rules 2010, which came into force on 17 August 2010 and revoked the right to charge, be noted;

(2)        That a further possible financial impact on the Council if the Government decides the replies to enquiries raised on the CON29R search enquiry form for both personal and official searches should also be provided free of charge under the Environmental Information Regulations be noted;

(3)        That a further report be made to a future meeting of the Cabinet, identifying options for the mitigation of any shortfall in income arising from the changed fee regime in respect of personal and CON29R search enquiries;

(4)        That, with immediate effect, personal searches be carried out in the manner specified within the report, in order to:

(a)        reduce the time spent by staff facilitating the provision of this service for which a charge can no longer be made; and

(b)        to avoid potential claims for incomplete information

(5)        That a further review be undertaken as to how the Council’s statutory responsibilities in relation to local land charge searches could be performed cost effectively;

(6)        That, in accordance with the recommendations of the Local Government Association, the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive be authorised to write to the relevant Government departmentsto advise them of the anticipated loss of income and additional administrative costs arising from the revocation of the personal search fee, and to seek assurances of Government assistance in that regard; and

(6)        That the sum of £300 be contributed to a fund administered by the Local Government Association to obtain advice on an alternative charging regime for personal and CON29R search enquiries.

Reasons for Decision:

Further information had been received from the Information Commissioner, following the previous report considered by the Cabinet in June. The Local Government Association  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.