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 Chairman 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, Councillors P Spencer and Mrs J Sutcliffe declared a personal interest in agenda item 10, Parking Reviews in Epping, Buckhurst Hill & Loughton, by virtue of being residents of Buckhurst Hill. The Councillors had determined that their 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 M Whitehouse declared a personal interest in agenda item 10, Parking Reviews in Epping, Buckhurst Hill & Loughton, by virtue of being a resident of Epping. The Councillor had determined that his interest was not prejudicial and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the issue.

(c)        Pursuant to the Council’s Officer Code of Conduct, I Willett declared a personal interest in agenda item 10, Parking Reviews in Epping, Buckhurst Hill & Loughton, by virtue of being a resident of Epping. The Officer 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 13 September 2010 (previously circulated).

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2010 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 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.

(i)         The following public question was asked by Mr J Silver:

“I have lived and worked in Chigwell Lane, near Debden station, for almost twenty years, running a podiatry practice . Many of my patients are elderly and in recent years have found it increasingly difficult to find a parking space within a comfortable walking distance. Also, local residents have been complaining for years now regarding the use of green spaces outside our front doors as parking spaces for inconsiderate commuters. Although some yellow lines have been put down recently only a fully controlled parking review would sort both these issues out.

The slow progress on the Broadway parking review and implementation of Theydon Bois ,Epping and Buckhurst Hill parking restrictions have meant that residents near Debden station find the roads constantly clogged with commuter cars as Loughton is now the only place on the Central line where commuters can park on residential streets near stations for free. What will the Cabinet do to hasten the Broadway review and institute a Controlled Parking zone near Debden station? Many residents feel trapped in their own homes and feel we have been shunned on many occasions so more affluent areas can have their parking issues dealt with time and again.

I have been a Conservative voter for years and I feel completely let down by Conservative controlled Essex and Epping Forest Councils.”

(ii)        The Portfolio Holder for Operational Planning & Transport gave the following response:

“Thank you for taking the time to submit your question and coming to tonight’s Cabinet to ask it.

I would firstly say that I do understand the difficulties which arise for local residents who live near to London Underground Stations.  Our District has eight Central Line stations and varying levels of inconvenience arise for all who live near them.  This inconvenience has been made worse recently due to large increases in car parking fees at Station car parks.

I am sorry that the parking review for the Broadway area has been delayed.  There are many reasons for this including the complexities of completing the Epping and Buckhurst Hill reviews and the availability of resources at Essex County Council whose officers are undertaking this work for us.  There have also been recent difficulties with the costs of advertising traffic regulation orders which put the Council’s budget for parking reviews at risk and necessitated a suspension of work. 

There has been no intention on my or my Cabinet colleagues’ part to deliberately delay the Broadway review as your question suggests.  It was always intended that there should be post implementation reviews at Epping and Buckhurst Hill, but these have been more complex than envisaged, and this has had the unfortunate effect of delaying commencement at The Broadway.  Furthermore, the County Council has stated that it would prefer a staged approach to the process to enable them to better plan and allocate their limited resources.  As Portfolio Holder I am duty bound to ensure that budgets allocated for projects such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

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 18 October 2010, when the following items of business were considered:

(i)         a recommendation from the Constitution & Member Services Panel to establish deputies for Portfolio Holders;

(ii)        proposals for the public to address both the Cabinet and Overview & Scrutiny Committee; and

(iii)       the procedure to be followed when a meeting is cancelled due to extreme weather conditions.

All three reports were agreed and recommended for approval at the next scheduled Council meeting.

(Leader of the Council) To consider the minutes from the recent meeting of the Local Development Framework Cabinet Committee held on 14 September 2010 and any recommendations therein.

Local Wildlife Sites – Evidence Base Study

(1)        That the strategy for the formal adoption of the Local Wildlife Sites Review by the Council be recommended to the Council for approval; and

Local Investment Plan

(2)        That the draft Local Investment Plan Evidence document 2010-15 be endorsed for submission and inclusion within the Joint Investment Plan for Epping Forest, Harlow and Uttlesford Councils.

The Leader of the Council presented the minutes from the meeting of the Local Development Framework Cabinet Committee held on 14 September 2010. The issues considered by the Cabinet Committee had included: an Evidence Base Study on Local Wildlife Sites; and the Local Investment Plan.

Decision:

Local Wildlife Sites – Evidence Base Study

(1)        That the strategy for the formal adoption of the Local Wildlife Sites Review by the Council be recommended to the Council for approval; and

Local Investment Plan

(2)        That the draft Local Investment Plan Evidence document 2010-15 be endorsed for submission and inclusion within the Joint Investment Plan for Epping Forest, Harlow and Uttlesford Councils.

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.

(Leader of the Council) To consider the minutes from the recent meeting of the Local Development Framework Cabinet Committee held on 4 October 2010 and any recommendations therein.

LDF Core Strategy – Key Principles

(1)        That the end date of the Core Strategy be agreed as 2031;

(2)        That the legal requirement to test a range of growth options, both for housing and employment purposes, be noted;

(3)        That the legal requirement for all reasonable spatial options to be assessed as part of the preparation of the Core Strategy be noted; and

(4)        That the following timetable for Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation period be agreed:

(a)        draft consultation document to be considered by the LDF Cabinet Committee on 28 March 2011;

(b)        ratification of the consultation document by the Cabinet on 6 June 2011; and

(c)        publication of the Issues and Options consultation document on 20 June 2011.

The Leader of the Council presented the minutes from the meeting of the Local Development Framework Cabinet Committee held on 4 October 2010. The issues considered by the Cabinet Committee had included: the key principles for the LDF Core Strategy; the LDF Communication Strategy; and the final viability assessment report for the Strategic Housing Market Assessment.

Decision:

LDF Core Strategy – Key Principles

(1)        That the end date of the Core Strategy be agreed as 2031;

(2)        That the legal requirement to test a range of growth options, both for housing and employment purposes, be noted;

(3)        That the legal requirement for all reasonable spatial options to be assessed as part of the preparation of the Core Strategy be noted; and

(4)        That the following timetable for Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation period be agreed:

(a)        draft consultation document to be considered by the LDF Cabinet Committee on 28 March 2011;

(b)        ratification of the consultation document by the Cabinet on 6 June 2011; and

(c)        publication of the Issues and Options consultation document on 20 June 2011.

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 & Performance Management Portfolio Holder) To consider the minutes from the recent meeting of the Finance & Performance Management Cabinet Committee held on 27 September 2010 and any recommendations therein.

Financial Issues Paper

(1)        That the 2011/12 budget guidelines be set in accordance with the revised four year forecast as follows:

(a)        the ceiling for the Continuing Services Budget net expenditure be no more than £17.064million including net growth;

(b)        the ceiling for District Development Fund expenditure be no more than £909,000;

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

(d)        the Council Tax not be increased, with the Council Tax for a Band D property remaining at £148.77;

(2)        That a revised Medium Term Financial Strategy for the period to 2014/15 be developed accordingly;

(3)        That communication of the revised Medium Term Financial Strategy to staff, partners and other stakeholders be undertaken by way of publishing key bullet points in appropriate publications;

(4)        That the availability of the Medium Term Financial Strategy on the Council’s website be highlighted to Members via the Council Bulletin;

(5)        That the policy of capitalisation of additional pension fund deficit payments be continued; and

(6)        That a further report on the progress of converting budget underspends into revenue savings be submitted to the next scheduled meeting of the Cabinet Committee;

District Development Fund

(7)        That the current balance on the District Development Fund reserve be noted;

(8)        That future bids for District Development Fund budgets be approved for a maximum period of two years; and

(9)        That the two-year time limit be retrospectively applied to all currently approved bids; and

Risk Management – Amendments to Corporate Risk Register

(10)      That the following risks be considered obsolete and deleted from the Corporate Risk Register:

(a)               risk 7a, Compliance with Regulations;

(b)        risk 7b, Public comments at Member level may commit the Council to policies or actions;

(c)        risk 10, Revised Organisational Structure;

(d)        risk 12, Gershon – rule changes;

(e)        risk 19, Planning Service does not improve;

(f)         risk 21, Use of Council assets; and

(g)        risk 25, Management Capacity in Planning;

(11)      That the likelihood for risk 5, Public Service Reorganisation which is detrimental to the Council and Community, be uprated from ‘Very Low’ to ‘Low’;

(12)      That the likelihood for risk 16, Performance Management, be downgraded from ‘Low’ to ‘Very Low’;

(13)      That the likelihood for risk 22, Key Partnership fails, be uprated from ‘Low’ to ‘Significant’;

(14)      That the likelihood for risk 23, Fraud, be uprated from ‘Very Low’ to ‘Significant’;

(15)      That the likelihood for risk 26, Investments, be downgraded from ‘Significant’ to ‘Low’;

(16)      That the likelihood for risk 29, Gypsy & Traveller Provision, be downgraded from ‘High’ to ‘Significant’;

(17)      That the likelihood for risk 30, Reduction in Government Grant, be uprated from ‘High’ to ‘Very High’;

(18)      That a new risk 32, Loss of On-Street Civil Parking Enforcement, be added to the Corporate Risk Register and be scored as ‘Significant Likelihood, Marginal Impact’;

(19)      That the current tolerance line on the risk matrix be considered satisfactory and  ...  view the full decision text for item 68.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance & Economic Development presented the minutes from the meeting of the Finance & Performance Management Cabinet Committee held on 27 September 2010. The issues considered by the Cabinet Committee had included: the Financial Issues Paper; the Value for Money and Data Quality Strategies 2010-13; the Quarterly Financial Monitoring report for April to June 2010; revised procedures for managing the District Development Fund; the 2009/10 Annual Outturn report for Treasury Management and the Prudential Indicators; amendments to the Corporate Risk Register; a consultation being undertaken on the Local Government Finance Formula Grant Distribution; and the Annual Governance Report on the audit of accounts for 2009/10.

Decision:

Financial Issues Paper

(1)        That the 2011/12 budget guidelines be set in accordance with the revised four year forecast as follows:

(a)        the ceiling for the Continuing Services Budget net expenditure be no more than £17.064million including net growth;

(b)        the ceiling for District Development Fund expenditure be no more than £909,000;

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

(d)        the Council Tax not be increased, with the Council Tax for a Band D property remaining at £148.77;

(2)        That a revised Medium Term Financial Strategy for the period to 2014/15 be developed accordingly;

(3)        That communication of the revised Medium Term Financial Strategy to staff, partners and other stakeholders be undertaken by way of publishing key bullet points in appropriate publications;

(4)        That the availability of the Medium Term Financial Strategy on the Council’s website be highlighted to Members via the Council Bulletin;

(5)        That the policy of capitalisation of additional pension fund deficit payments be continued; and

(6)        That a further report on the progress of converting budget underspends into revenue savings be submitted to the next scheduled meeting of the Cabinet Committee;

District Development Fund

(7)        That the current balance on the District Development Fund reserve be noted;

(8)        That future bids for District Development Fund budgets be approved for a maximum period of two years; and

(9)        That the two-year time limit be retrospectively applied to all currently approved bids; and

Risk Management – Amendments to Corporate Risk Register

(10)      That the following risks be considered obsolete and deleted from the Corporate Risk Register:

(a)               risk 7a, Compliance with Regulations;

(b)        risk 7b, Public comments at Member level may commit the Council to policies or actions;

(c)        risk 10, Revised Organisational Structure;

(d)        risk 12, Gershon – rule changes;

(e)        risk 19, Planning Service does not improve;

(f)         risk 21, Use of Council assets; and

(g)        risk 25, Management Capacity in Planning;

(11)      That the likelihood for risk 5, Public Service Reorganisation which is detrimental to the Council and Community, be uprated from ‘Very Low’ to ‘Low’;

(12)      That the likelihood for risk 16, Performance Management, be downgraded from ‘Low’ to ‘Very Low’;

(13)      That the likelihood for risk 22, Key Partnership fails, be uprated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

(Operational Planning & Transport Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-031-2010/11).

(1)        That the total expenditure to date since the commencement of the 2004/05 financial year on the Epping, Buckhurst Hill and Loughton Broadway parking reviews in the sum of £922,956 be noted;

(2)        That further work on the parking reviews be continued;

(3)        That, in the light of the forthcoming withdrawal of the on street parking enforcement agency by Essex County Council, purchase of new pay and display machines be removed from the current review proposals generating a capital saving of £70,000;

(4)        That the £20,000 associated with the previous abortive advertising costs not be paid to Essex County Council;

(5)        That the estimated reduction in cost of the reviews from £646,000 to £556,000, against the current budget provision of £527,000, be noted;

(6)        That, on the basis Essex County Council would not provide a written assurance for their revised approach to advertising the Traffic Regulation Orders (proposals and final orders) meeting with all legal requirements nor indemnify the Council against any abortive costs which would arise should the revised approach be successfully challenged, advertising of the Orders be undertaken through a newspaper or newspapers whose circulations cover all of the areas affected by the reviews at an estimated maximum additional cost of £165,000;

(7)        That, as recommended by the Local Highways Panel, the reviews be progressed through a phased approach of completing the Epping review first, followed by the Buckhurst Hill review and finally the Loughton Broadway review, but with total expenditure to be contained within the currently available capital allocation;

(8)        That the use of the ring fenced on street parking enforcement account be authorised to meet the additional costs of:

(a)        the capital costs of the reviews should the budget be exceeded; and/or

(b)        the enforcement associated with the implementation of new and revised Traffic Regulation Orders, to include weekend and evening enforcement where required; and

(9)        That the Council should no longer undertake wide area parking reviews be agreed.

The Portfolio Holder for Operational Planning & Transport presented a report upon the parking reviews in Epping, Buckhurst Hill and Loughton Broadway.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that the Council had implemented a number of wide area parking reviews when it had the agency agreement with Essex County Council (The Highways Authority). Although the agency agreement had reverted back to the County Council in 2006, the District Council had agreed to fund wide area parking reviews for Epping and Buckhurst Hill, including a further review 6 months after the implementation. A similar wide area parking review for Loughton Broadway had been approved as part of a town centre enhancement scheme. The three reviews had progressed to various stages with Epping at the most advanced stage followed by Buckhurst Hill and Loughton Broadway. Informal consultations had been carried out in all three areas with mixed responses received from residents. A decision was now required on the future of these schemes.

The Portfolio Holder reported that total expenditure on the schemes had now reached £922,956 since 2004/05 and that a decision was now required on whether to continue with the schemes. If it was decided to not continue with the schemes then the proposal was to revert the £215,00 of capital spent so far to the District Development Fund and withdraw the remaining £527,000 from the capital programme. If it was decided to continue with the schemes then the proposals were to remove the pay-and-display parking machines from the programme as the County Council intended to resume responsibility for on-street parking enforcement in 2011, and to not pay the County Council the £20,000 for the previous abortive advertising costs. This reduced the estimated cost of the schemes from £646,000 to £556,000, against a current budget provision of £527,000. It was also suggested that the reviews should be progressed in the order of Epping, followed by Buckhurst Hill and finally Loughton Broadway as recommended by the Local Highways Panel, with total expenditure to be contained within the available capital allocation.

The Portfolio Holder declared that if it was agreed to continue with the reviews and as the County Council would not provide written assurance that their revised approach to advertising Traffic Regulation Orders met with all the necessary legal requirements, the Council should advertise the Orders through local newspapers whose circulations covered the affected areas at an estimated maximum cost of £165,000. It was thought that as the current plan was to progress the reviews in stages, newspaper notices could be supplemented by the hand delivery of notices that could reduce the overall advertising cost. Finally, the Cabinet was requested to agree that no more wide area parking reviews should be undertaken by the Council.

The Director of Environment & Street Scene outlined the process to be followed for each review and added that it would probably be a number of months before the results of the reviews would be actually implemented. The initial parking reviews in Epping and Buckhurst Hill had been completed,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

(Leader of the Council) To consider the attached report (C-032-2010/11).

(1)        That the first paragraph of the Introduction on page 7 of the Strategy be amended to read “…but difficult to get around without a car in some areas, particularly…”; and

(2)        That the Sustainable Community Strategy, as amended above, be recommended to the Council for approval.

The Leader of the Council presented a report requesting the approval of the Sustainable Community Strategy, prior to its final adoption by the Council.

The Leader reported that the draft strategy had been produced with the help and support of a wide range of partners, key groups and many individual members of the public who had given their views. Voluntary Action Epping Forest in particular had provided invaluable support to the consultation stage with funding supplied by Essex County Council. The new strategy also provided a focused set of priority objectives that would help shape the business plans of key partners and provide guidance for the production of the Local Development Framework. The new vision was a clear statement of the ambition of the District and a goal for all of the partners to work towards.

The Leader added that the major strategic priority for the District and partners in the short and medium term, however, would remain tackling the public sector deficit, whilst protecting the services needed and valued by local communities. This would require a vigorous effort to ensure Epping Forest received its fair share of external funding, grasped new opportunities to innovate in line with ideas such as the ‘Big Society’ and delivered new platforms for more efficient service delivery with key partners. The developing work of the West Essex Partnership would be central to the ability to deliver on all these key aims, while managing reductions in Performance Reward Grant.

A minor amendment to the first paragraph of the Introduction on page 7 of the Strategy was suggested and agreed, as it was felt that it was not necessarily difficult to move around without a car in some areas of the District, particularly in the south of the District where there were better public transport links.

Decision:

(1)        That the first paragraph of the Introduction on page 7 of the Strategy be amended to read “…but difficult to get around without a car in some areas, particularly…”; and

(2)        That the Sustainable Community Strategy, as amended above, be recommended to the Council for approval.

Reasons for Decision:

The Council was required to statutorily make arrangements for the preparation and finalisation of a Sustainable Community Strategy for the Epping Forest District, under the Local Government Act 2000.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

The partnership had considered a number of alternative priorities, with a wide range of partners including elected members, before agreeing the draft Strategy, which concentrated on a smaller number of key issues where joint action could add value.

(Finance & Economic Development Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-033-2010/11).

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

(2)        That the level of usable capital receipts currently predicted to be £6,900,000 at 31 March 2015 be noted;

(3)        That the revised Capital Programme for the period 2010/11 to 2014/15 be approved; and

(4)        That the following amendments to the Capital Programme be approved or, where relevant, recommended to the Council for approval:

(a)        carry forwards totalling £5.019million from 2010/11 to 2011/12 and 20012/13 in respect of capital schemes as outlined in the report;

(b)        inclusion in the programme of £1million to cover the potential purchase of seven  new refuse vehicles in 2011/12;

(c)        rescheduling of the General Capital Contingency and the Private Sector Housing Capital Contingency into future years as indicated in the report;

(d)        removal of underspends of £96,000 within the Housing General Fund  2010/11;

(e)        a supplementary estimate of £620,000 in the 2010/11 Housing Revenue Account capital programme as a consequence of the additional Revenue Contributions which became available at the end of 2009/10;

(f)         an additional allocation of £165,000 in 2011/12 for Waltham Abbey regeneration schemes to be financed from a ring fenced capital receipt;

(g)        virements within the Housing Revenue Account in respect of the categories of work identified in the report; and

(h)        a transfer of £200,000 to the Pension Fund Capital Reserve in 2010/11.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance & Economic Development presented a report about the review of the capital programme for the period 2010/11 to 2014/15.

The Portfolio Holder advised the Cabinet that the capital programme as agreed would form the basis of the Capital Strategy to be presented in November 2010 and the Asset Management Plan. The capital programme had been prepared by updating the programme approved in February 2010 and adding new schemes and allocations subsequently approved by the Cabinet. Each scheme within the capital programme had been reviewed and spending control officers had reassessed estimated final costs and the phasing of expenditure profiles for each scheme as part of the capital review. Recommendations had been made to make amendments as appropriate.

The Portfolio Holder added that the programme covered the five financial years to 2014/15 and showed an estimated capital spend of £50.74million over the period. The funding available to finance these schemes had been reassessed and the suggested application of the different sources of funding had been given over the five-year period. Estimated external funding from grants and private sources of £3.158million had been identified, and it was proposed that estimated capital receipts of £15.31million and estimated revenue contributions of £32.272million be applied to finance the capital programme over the next five years. The balance of capital receipts was predicted to fall from £21.091million as at 1 April 2010 to £6.9million by 31 March 2015, whilst the Major Repairs Fund balance was expected to increase from £5.73million to £9.932million by the end of the period.

In response to questions from the Members present, the Portfolio Holder stated that there were no plans to review or remove the current provision for Off-Street Parking Schemes; it was anticipated that the construction works would not be complete until 2011/12, hence it was intended to carry-forward the current provision. It was confirmed that the additional allocation of £165,000 provided by the Lidl development would be ring fenced for schemes within Waltham Abbey.

Decision:

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

(2)        That the level of usable capital receipts currently predicted to be £6,900,000 at 31 March 2015 be noted;

(3)        That the revised Capital Programme for the period 2010/11 to 2014/15 be approved; and

(4)        That the following amendments to the Capital Programme be approved or, where relevant, recommended to the Council for approval:

(a)        carry forwards totalling £5.019million from 2010/11 to 2011/12 and 20012/13 in respect of capital schemes as outlined in the report;

(b)        inclusion in the programme of £1million to cover the potential purchase of seven  new refuse vehicles in 2011/12;

(c)        rescheduling of the General Capital Contingency and the Private Sector Housing Capital Contingency into future years as indicated in the report;

(d)        removal of underspends of £96,000 within the Housing General Fund  2010/11;

(e)        a supplementary estimate of £620,000 in the 2010/11 Housing Revenue Account capital programme as a consequence of the additional Revenue Contributions which became available at the end of 2009/10;

(f)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-034-2010/11).

(1)        That reason for the delay in reviewing the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme, being due to the Government’s new statutory guidance on Social Housing Allocations for Local Authorities in England (“Fair and Flexible”) not being received until late January 2010 and the additional time needed to meet with its requirements, be noted;

(2)        That, following detailed consultation and consideration by the Housing Scrutiny Panel, the proposed changes to the Housing Allocations Scheme as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, including a revision to paragraph 9 of the scheme concerning the Penalty for Refusal of Offers of Accommodation reported at the meeting by the Portfolio Holder, be agreed and implemented from 1 December 2010; 

(3)        That authority be delegated to the Housing Portfolio Holder to consider any late responses to the consultations, and approve the final Allocations Scheme; and

(4)        That, due to the delay referred to above, the Allocations Scheme not be reviewed again until late 2011, with any resultant changes being effective from 1 April 2012.

The Housing Portfolio Holder introduced a report on the review of the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme.

The Portfolio Holder stated that the Council was legally required to have a Housing Allocations Scheme setting out the procedures for allocating its housing accommodation and making nominations to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs). The review of the Scheme had been delayed in 2010/11 to enable the Council to meet a number of conditions under the Government’s new statutory guidance on Social Housing Allocations for Local Authorities in England (“Fair and Flexible”), which was not received until late in January 2010.

The Portfolio Holder reported an amendment to paragraph 9 of the scheme, concerning the Penalty for Refusal of Offers of Accommodation, whereby any applicant who refused two offers of suitable accommodation would be demoted to band 6 of the Allocations Scheme for a period of six months, rather than being ineligible to express an interest in a property for six months. This amendment had been made following legal advice received by Housing Officers that applicants could only be demoted not suspended from the Scheme.

The Portfolio Holder requested the Cabinet to note the reasons why the review of the Allocations Scheme had been deferred, with the new scheme being implemented six months later than normal from 1 December 2010.  As a consequence, It had been suggested that the next review be undertaken by 1 April 2012.  Although there was a legal requirement under the Housing Act 1996 to have an Allocations Scheme, the Council was not obligated to review the Scheme on an annual basis. The Cabinet was requested to agree the changes to the Allocations Scheme, with effect from 1 December 2010.

Decision:

(1)        That reason for the delay in reviewing the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme, being due to the Government’s new statutory guidance on Social Housing Allocations for Local Authorities in England (“Fair and Flexible”) not being received until late January 2010 and the additional time needed to meet with its requirements, be noted;

(2)        That, following detailed consultation and consideration by the Housing Scrutiny Panel, the proposed changes to the Housing Allocations Scheme as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, including a revision to paragraph 9 of the scheme concerning the Penalty for Refusal of Offers of Accommodation reported at the meeting by the Portfolio Holder, be agreed and implemented from 1 December 2010; 

(3)        That authority be delegated to the Housing Portfolio Holder to consider any late responses to the consultations, and approve the final Allocations Scheme; and

(4)        That, due to the delay referred to above, the Allocations Scheme not be reviewed again until late 2011, with any resultant changes being effective from 1 April 2012.

Reasons for Decision:

The review of the Housing Allocations Scheme was delayed to enable the Council to meet the Government’s new statutory guidance on Social Housing Allocations for Local Authorities in England (“Fair and Flexible”). The changes proposed to the Allocations Scheme to take effect from 1 December 2010, would generally  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

(Finance & Economic Development Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-035-2010/11).

(1)        That the increase in District Development Funding in the sum of £27,790 from the refund of National Non-Domestic Rates for Waltham Abbey Sports Centre be noted; and

(2)        That the use of the funding to deal with the one off, unplanned emergency works listed below totalling £25,696 be recommended to the Council for approval:

(a)        emergency ditch work at North Weald Airfield;

(b)        investigation of the Bund at North Weald Airfield;

(c)        security costs at Roding Valley; and

(d)        security costs at North Weald Airfield.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance & Economic Development presented a report concerning funding for one-off unplanned emergency items that had occurred within the Environment & Street Scene Directorate.

The Portfolio Holder reported that, during 2010/11, there were 4 occasions where one off, unplanned emergency works had had to be carried out.  The background, risk to the Council and/or the Council assets and the relative small cost of three of the items were evaluated and decisions had been made to undertake the work and then to consider the funding at the revised budget cycle so possible solutions could be found without increasing the Continuing Services Budget (CSB). The four items were:

·                     Emergency Ditch work North Weald Airfield;

·                     Investigation of the Bund at North Weald Airfield;

·                     Security at Roding Valley; and

·                     Security at North Weald Airfield (2 incidents).

The Portfolio Holder added that savings in the CSB had not been identified at the revised budget cycle to cover these costs. However, there had been a refund of National Non-Domestic Rates for Waltham Abbey Sports Centre amounting to £27,790 which had been added to the District Development Fund (DFF) in 2010/11, and it was felt that this could be used to cover these unplanned emergency costs.

The Cabinet was appraised of the gratitude of residents from North Weald for the overnight security that had been established at the Airfield in the wake of the two Traveller incursions that had occurred in the vicinity at the former Golf Driving Range. The Director of Environment & Street Scene clarified that additional funding for the Roding Valley site was only being requested for the overnight security presence, as the cost of the actual works were being met by the Estates and Valuations Budget.

Decision:

(1)        That the increase in District Development Funding in the sum of £27,790 from the refund of National Non-Domestic Rates for Waltham Abbey Sports Centre be noted; and

(2)        That the use of the funding to deal with the one off, unplanned emergency works listed below totalling £25,696 be recommended to the Council for approval:

(a)        emergency ditch work at North Weald Airfield;

(b)        investigation of the Bund at North Weald Airfield;

(c)        security costs at Roding Valley; and

(d)        security costs at North Weald Airfield.

Reasons for Decision:

To fund the emergency works that had to be undertaken, where there was no budget available, from the additional income arising from the refund of National Non-Domestic Rates at Waltham Abbey Sports Centre.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To not provide the funding in this manner for these items, however this would lead to all budget codes where these works/services were temporarily coded being overspent in 2010/11.

(Performance Management Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-036-2010/11).

(1)        That, as recommended by the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Panel, the reviewing of the parameters of sick pay entitlements be removed from the Key Performance Indicator Improvement Plan; and

(2)        That the sickness absence suffered by the Council during 2009/10 be noted.

In the absence of the Portfolio Holder for Performance Management, the Director of Corporate Support Services presented a report on sickness absence within the Council.

The Director reported upon the Council’s absence figures for 2009/10, and included absence figures by Directorate; absence by age and the reasons for absence.  Currently, under the Council’s Managing Absence Policy, there were trigger levels for initiating management action in cases of excessive sickness absence:

(i)    during any ‘rolling’ twelve-month period an employee had 5 or more separate            occasions of absence; or

(ii)        during any ‘rolling’ twelve-month period an employee had at least 8 working days of any combination of un/self certificated, or medically certificated absences.

The Director advised that the Council’s target for sickness absence under LPI28 was an average of 8 days per employee; the Outturn figure for 2009/10 was 8.35 days, compared to 10.85 days in the previous year. During this period approximately 20% of staff had met the trigger levels or above, 44% had sickness but did not meet the trigger levels and 36% of staff had no sickness absence.

The Director added that an Improvement Plan had been developed to continue to improve sickness absence across the Council. The Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Panel had recommended at their meeting on 9 September 2010 that the reviewing of the parameters of sick pay entitlements be removed from the plan at this stage. The Panel had concluded that trade union negotiations and the contractual issues would be lengthy and fairly complex and it would be more practical to see if a review of sickness entitlements could be undertaken as part of the national negotiations.

The Leader of the Council welcomed the improvement in sickness absence over the past twelve months; the current levels were still too high although it was acknowledged that the vast majority of staff had had very little sickness problems during 2009/10.

Decision:

(1)        That, as recommended by the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Panel, the reviewing of the parameters of sick pay entitlements be removed from the Key Performance Indicator Improvement Plan; and

(2)        That the sickness absence suffered by the Council during 2009/10 be noted.

Reasons for Decision:

To enable members to make decisions regarding actions to continue to improve the Council’s absence figures.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To recommend that the Joint Consultative Committee consider reducing one or both trigger levels.

To not accept the recommendation of the report and substitute other options.

(Performance Management & Housing Portfolio Holders) To consider the attached report (C-037-2010/11).

(1)        That a contract be awarded to Amalgamated Lifts Ltd in the sum of £27,022 plus VAT per year being the second lowest tender received for the Preventative, Routine and Reactive (breakdown) Maintenance, including Statutory Testing and Certification, of 24 Lifts at various locations within the Epping Forest District; and

(2)        That the contract period be set for a three year period from the anticipated appointment on 15 November 2010 until 14 November 2013; and

(3)        That the annual rate of £27,022 plus VAT be applied giving a contract value of £81,066, comprising two years fixed price with the final year being subject to inflation by the application of the appropriate inflation index.

In the absence of the Portfolio Holder for Performance Management, the Director of Corporate Support Services presented a report concerning the maintenance and statutory testing of electric and hydraulic lifts.

The Director reported that, following a competitive tendering exercise using six lift engineering contractors selected from Constructionline, tender offers were received within the range: £22,520 to £48,392 for a single year period. After a detailed analysis, the lowest offer received in the value of £22,520 had been rejected for a number of reasons identified during the evaluation process. The second lowest tender received from Amalgamated Lifts Ltd, with a value of £27,022 per year, had met all of the specification requirements and was recommended for acceptance.

The Director added that the project cost was being split between the Corporate Support Services and Housing Directorates and was funded from within existing budgets. However, as the project involved both the Performance Management and Housing Portfolios, this matter had to be reported to the Cabinet.

Decision:

(1)        That a contract be awarded to Amalgamated Lifts Ltd in the sum of £27,022 plus VAT per year being the second lowest tender received for the Preventative, Routine and Reactive (breakdown) Maintenance, including Statutory Testing and Certification, of 24 Lifts at various locations within the Epping Forest District; and

(2)        That the contract period be set for a three year period from the anticipated appointment on 15 November 2010 until 14 November 2013; and

(3)        That the annual rate of £27,022 plus VAT be applied giving a contract value of £81,066, comprising two years fixed price with the final year being subject to inflation by the application of the appropriate inflation index.

Reasons for Decision:

All Lifts require regular servicing, testing and certification to meet the requirements of the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that they were safe for the users. Additionally, there were critical tests required in order to comply with the requirements of the Council’s Insurers.

In addition to providing good routine maintenance and covering breakdown calls, this contract would ensure full compliance with all statutory criteria and would meet the Council’s obligations under the relevant risk and safety criteria.

Having reviewed the servicing and maintenance of all Lifts, it was established that there was a potential for savings to be made by collectively incorporating all lifts into one contract.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To do nothing and not comply with Health and Safety Legislation, the Council’s Insurer’s requirements and British Standards.

(Environment Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-038-2010/11).

(1)        That the introduction of the Private Water Supplies (England) Regulations 2009 be noted;

(2)        That a charging regime for work carried out be implemented at  the maximum level permitted by the Regulations;

(3)        That the initial risk assessments required by the new Regulations not be charged for; and

(4)        That a further report be submitted to the Cabinet once the initial risk assessments had been completed and the numbers and types of Private Water Supplies were known.

The Environment Portfolio Holder presented a report upon the Council charging for the monitoring and assessment of private water supplies.

The Cabinet was informed that the Private Water Supplies (PWS) (England) Regulations 2009 were implemented in2010 to meet the UK’s obligations under the revised European Union Directive 98/83EC. They replaced earlier regulations with respect to private water supplies, which historically had been enforced by the Council since the early 1990s. The new regulations had placed a number of additional requirements on the Council and consequently had increased the burden on both staff and financial resources. The regulations allowed for a Local Authority to charge for services provided and suggested a maximum fee structure for certain activities. The Director of Environment & Street Scene added that the fee structure would be reviewed in due course to ensure that the costs incurred by the Council were being met.

Decision:

(1)        That the introduction of the Private Water Supplies (England) Regulations 2009 be noted;

(2)        That a charging regime for work carried out be implemented at  the maximum level permitted by the Regulations;

(3)        That the initial risk assessments required by the new Regulations not be charged for; and

(4)        That a further report be submitted to the Cabinet once the initial risk assessments had been completed and the numbers and types of Private Water Supplies were known.

Reasons for Decision:

To agree the introduction of a system of charging for testing and other activities to be carried out in order to implement the requirements of the new legislation. This would assist the Council to meet the increased financial burden imposed by the regulations.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To continue to provide the testing of PWS free of charge. However, due to the increased requirements upon the Council, there were currently insufficient funds in the budget allocation to assess and test all the PWS in the District. The testing of supplies free of charge, particularly for single dwellings where there was no mandatory requirement to do so and where past knowledge and/or a risk assessment had not shown it to be necessary, was not considered a sensible use of resources.

To provide a free service for supplies where there was a statutory obligation for the Council to sample. This would result in charging for single dwelling properties (which currently represent the majority of the PWS within the District) and any request-based testing, whilst the sampling of larger PWS would be undertaken free of charge. This option offered a  benefit in ensuring co-operation from the owners/occupiers of the larger supplies (which had a greater potential to impact on public health due to the numbers of people they serve) and would reduce the anticipated increase in officer’s time spent in enforcing the regulations. However, this option would still have financial implications for the Council with regard to the testing of the larger supplies.

(Legal & Estates Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-039-2010/11).

(1)        That the use of part of the North Weald Airfield by the Olympic Development Agency as a park and ride facility during the white water canoeing events be approved; and

(2)        That a bid for £4,000 from the District Development Fund in 2011/12 be made to alleviate the expected loss of income.

The Portfolio Holder for Legal & Estates presented a report upon the use of part of North Weald Airfield for park-and-ride facilities during the 2012 Olympic Games.

The Portfolio Holder informed the Cabinet that the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) had approached the Council seeking its consent to enable the use of part of the airfield as a park-and-ride facility for the five-day duration of the white water canoeing events, scheduled to take place in late July and early August 2012.  No payment for the use would be forthcoming given the non profit nature of the ODA and the Organising Committee of the London Olympic Games (Locog).  The location would be required by ODA/Locog for two to three weeks in total. Whilst there would be no disruption to the Saturday market at the Airfield, there would be disruption to sports car activities and Heavy Goods Vehicle training with some loss of income (circa £4,000), for which a bid for District Development Funding had been proposed.  All other park and ride facilities for the games were being provided by site owners at no cost to the ODA/Locog and ODA/Locog were committed to ensuring that the land use was fully reinstated following its use for park-and-ride.

The Director of Environment & Street Scene explained that there would be no clash with the market as the canoeing events were not scheduled for a Saturday, and access to the Airfield to set up the park-and-ride facilities would be via different gates to those used by the Market. It was unclear whether low emission vehicles would be used to ferry the spectators between the Airfield and the White Water Centre. The Acting Chief Executive added that the current security arrangements in place would not allow the spectators to stop on the route between the White Water Centre and the Airfield; the benefit to the District, and Waltham Abbey in particular, would come after the games had finished with the legacy events currently planned. The proposed route was queried as it was felt that the A121 would be a more appropriate route, however the Cabinet was informed that this had been designated an Olympic route for athletes to the White Water Centre, not spectators.

Decision:

(1)        That the use of part of the North Weald Airfield by the Olympic Delivery Authority as a park-and-ride facility during the white water canoeing events be approved; and

(2)        That a bid for £4,000 from the District Development Fund in 2011/12 be made to alleviate the expected loss of income.

Reasons for Decision:

North Weald Airfield was a very convenient location for such a facility to support the white water canoeing events taking place at the White Water Centre on the borders of Broxbourne and Waltham Abbey. The games were intended to be the “greenest” ever, with all spectators being required to use public transport and/or park and ride facilities to access the various venues. Agreement for the use of the Airfield demonstrated the Council’s support for the overall success of the Olympic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with paragraphs (6) and (24) of the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Constitution 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.

Following publication of the agenda, the Leader of the Council has permitted the following to be considered at the meeting:

(i)         Liquidation of a Company providing services to the Council.

The Democratic Services Officer reported that one item of urgent business received after the agenda had been published, the minutes of the Local Development Framework Cabinet Committee held on 4 October 2010, had already been dealt with whilst the second item, Liquidation of a Company providing Services to the Council, would be dealt with after the public and press had been excluded.

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

21                    Options for a Development Agreement                      3

                        for the potential Langston Road project

22                    Liquidation of a Company providing                      1,3,5 & 7

                        Services to the Council

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 items of business set out below as they 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

21                    Options for a Development Agreement                      3

                        for the potential Langston Road project

22                    Liquidation of a Company providing                      1,3,5 & 7

                        Services to the Council

(Legal & Estates Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-040-2010/11).

(1)        That, in respect of the potential development at Langston Road, the Council’s preferred option be to maximise revenue from the project;

(2)        That the Council enter into a Single Purpose Vehicle with Polofind Limited on an equal basis to hold and jointly develop the adjoining sites at Langston Road as a retail park be agreed in principle; and

(3)        That, in order to procure specialist legal and tax advice, a District Development Fund supplementary estimate in the sum of £25,000 be recommended to the Council for approval.

The Portfolio Holder for Legal & Estates presented a restricted report upon the options for a development agreement for the Langston Road project.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that it had previously stated its intention to maximise revenue from the Council’s assets and to dispose (by sale or otherwise) of the Langston Road depot site in particular, to further that objective. The Langston Road Depot site had greater potential if developed in conjunction with the neighbouring T11 site, which was owned by Polofind Ltd. It was likely that the two sites had a greater value together rather than individually.

The Portfolio Holder reported that negotiations with Polofind’s representatives had been progressing, which would lead to an application for planning permission being submitted jointly in the next few months. This report dealt with the Landlord function of the Council, which would in no way impact upon its entirely separate role as the planning authority. There had to be a legal agreement which would govern matters of ownership and how the financial benefits were to be shared. The Cabinet was requested to consider the available options for such an agreement and to indicate the preferred option bearing in mind the respective benefits and risks.

The Portfolio Holder added that it was currently felt that any development at the Langston Road Depot would not adversely impact upon the traders within Loughton Broadway. Specialist legal and tax advice would be required to progress the project and a District Development Fund supplementary estimate in the sum of £25,000 was requested to be recommended to the Council for approval.

Decision:

(1)        That, in respect of the potential development at Langston Road, the Council’s preferred option be to maximise revenue from the project;

(2)        That the option of entering into a Single Purpose Vehicle with Polofind Limited on an equal basis to hold and jointly develop the adjoining sites at Langston Road as a retail park be agreed in principle; and

(3)        That, in order to procure specialist legal and tax advice, a District Development Fund supplementary estimate in the sum of £25,000 be recommended to the Council for approval.

Reasons for Decision:

To ensure that the structure of any agreement governing the potential development of the Langston Road project was appropriate and reflected the wishes of the Cabinet.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To market its own site for sale, however this would not satisfy the stated objective of maximising income generation but was relatively free of risks that would be associated with any joint development.

To retain the site for operational use, however this was contrary to the stated Cabinet objective and would not realise the potential of the site.

(Finance & Economic Development Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached restricted report (C-041-2010/11).

(1)        That the confidential details of this matter and the possibility of criminal charges resulting from an investigation by Essex Police be noted;

(2)        That, in respect of this matter, the requirements of the following Contract Standing Orders and Delegated Authorities be retrospectively waived:

(a)        Contract Standing Order C3 in relation to the appointment of Morgan Cole;

(b)        Delegated Authority CL22 in relation to the appointment of Morgan Cole; and

(c)        Delegated Authority CL22 in relation to the appointment of Counsel;

(3)        That a District Development Fund supplementary estimate in the sum of £30,000 for external legal fees be recommended to the Council for approval;

(4)        That the undertaking of civil proceedings against both the directors and the company concerned be agreed; and

(5)        That the appointment of a liquidator to replace the liquidator proposed by the directors be sought by the Council.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance & Economic Development presented a restricted report upon the liquidation of a company that had provided services to the Council.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the Council used a number of external bailiff companies to assist in the collection of Council Tax and Non-Domestic Business Rates. Annually the Council collected in excess of £80million of Council Tax and £30million of Non-Domestic Rates. The Directors of one of the external bailiff companies used by the Council were seeking to place the company in liquidation, with the company owing the Council approximately £150,000. The conduct of the Directors and their failure to pay over money they had collected on behalf of the Council was being investigated by the Police and could result in criminal charges against the Directors.

The Portfolio Holder stated that claims had been made against the company’s professional indemnity insurance and the Council’s fidelity guarantee insurance. However, the Council’s insurers would not process the claim until the Police investigation had been concluded. In addition to the Police investigation, the Council could pursue a civil claim against the Directors and the company, and could also seek the appointment of a different liquidator to the one proposed by the Directors. The Cabinet was also requested to waive the relevant Contract Standing Orders and recommend a District Development Fund supplementary estimate to the Council for external legal advice.

Decision:

(1)        That the confidential details of this matter and the possibility of criminal charges resulting from an investigation by Essex Police be noted;

(2)        That, in respect of this matter, the requirements of the following Contract Standing Orders and Delegated Authorities be retrospectively waived:

(a)        Contract Standing Order C4 in relation to the appointment of Morgan Cole;

(b)        Delegated Authority CL22 in relation to the appointment of Morgan Cole; and

(c)        Delegated Authority CL22 in relation to the appointment of Counsel;

(3)        That a District Development Fund supplementary estimate in the sum of £30,000 for external legal fees, to include a freezing order, be recommended to the Council for approval;

(4)        That the undertaking of civil proceedings against both the Directors and the company concerned be agreed; and

(5)        That the appointment of a liquidator to replace the liquidator proposed by the Directors be sought by the Council.

Reasons for Decision:

To set out clearly the strategy that should be followed in seeking to recover the monies owed to the Council.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To place reliance on the Police investigation and a subsequent prosecution resulting in a compensation order being made against the Directors.

To not undertake civil proceedings against both the Directors and the Company due to the insurance claims lodged, however the company’s insurers were refusing to discuss the Council’s claim until after the Police investigation had been completed.

To not seek the appointment of a different liquidator to that chosen by the Directors, however some liquidators were more robust in investigating and holding to account the Directors.