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.

There were no declarations of interest pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Cabinet held on 15 April 2013 (previously circulated).

Resolved:

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 April 2013 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Resolved:

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting held 15 April 2013 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.

Leader of the Council

“I would like to make a brief statement about the flooding incident at the Civic Offices in the early hours of Sunday.

A large amount of water caused damage in the Planning department and offices directly beneath it occupied by Support Services and Finance. Damage to electrical cables and switch equipment temporarily cut the power supply to the whole building but supplies to the more recently constructed areas of the office were re-established on Sunday afternoon.

Temporary power supplies were installed to the telephone switchboard and cash office ensuring these essential services were available on Monday morning. IT systems were brought back online during the course of Sunday afternoon and evening. The website was also back online by 9.00am on Monday.

Staff were contacted by text on Sunday night, with instructions for those based in the Conder Building and rear extension to stay at home unless contacted by their Line Managers.  Using procedures developed in the Council’s Business Continuity Plan, essential services including Council Tax, Housing Benefit, Cash Office and the Switchboard based in the Conder Building were all either relocated or up and running with temporary power supplies by 9.00am on Monday.

Staff have continued to work tirelessly throughout Monday.

Earlier today in a statement issued to the local media and posted to our website I said: “This is the kind of event that can hit any organisation. We have good Business Continuity Plans in place and actually practised for a similar scenario only a year or two ago. It meant we had anticipated many of the potential issues and were able to respond very quickly despite the significant disruption.”

“We will have the insurance assessors in and there will no doubt be quite a few repairs but I am confident we will be back to normal very soon.”

Excellent progress has been made but it may be several days before we are able to start moving staff back into the Conder Building. In the meantime, temporary arrangements including use of the IT Training Room, Committee Rooms and other smaller meeting rooms are being used in combination with Home Working to keep services running.

I would like to thank all the staff involved. What could have been a very much more serious situation has been saved by the extremely high levels of expertise, professionalism and dedication of staff throughout the organisation.”

The Deputy Leader of the Council also added her personal thanks to the staff involved.

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 2013 (minute 105(iii) refers) on any matter in relation to which the Cabinet has powers or duties or which affects the District.

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

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

(b)        To consider any matters that the Cabinet would like the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny function to examine as part of their work programme.

The Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee reported that the following items of business had been considered at its meeting held on 4 June 2013:

(a)        a presentation from the Director of Children’s Social Care at Essex County Council on corporate parenting and the role Councillors could play in spotting problems with, and making decisions on, the welfare of disadvantaged children;

(b)        the final report of the Senior Recruitment Review Task & Finish Panel, whose recommendations were agreed;

(c)        the final draft of the Overview & Scrutiny Annual Report, to be considered by the Council on 30 July 2013; and

(d)        agreement on the composition and Chairmen of the various different Scrutiny Panels for the coming year.

In reviewing the agenda for tonight’s Cabinet meeting, the Chairman of the Housing Scrutiny Panel urged support for the item on the acceptance of a tender to provide replacement kitchens to Council-owned dwellings, whilst for the item concerning the responses to the Community Choices consultation, the Cabinet was encouraged to produce clear and accessible reports on Local Plan issues for residents to understand.

The Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee added that he was unaware of the progress made on the recommendations from the Council’s own Children Services Task & Finish Scrutiny Panel, but this would be followed up and reported back to Members.

(Planning Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-003-2013/14).

(1)        That the experience of other authorities in applying the National Planning Policy Framework over the last year, including any lessons learnt, be noted; and

(2)        That, following comparison of the Council’s existing policies against the National Planning Policy Framework, the policies rated as compliant, generally compliant or partially compliant be continued to be used until the adoption of the new Local Plan supersedes them; and

(3)        That any policy found to be outdated be given little or no weight hereafter;

(4)        That the weighting to be given to a particular planning policy be highlighted in the planning application report considered by Area Planning Sub-Committees; and

(5)       That the experience of other Councils when their Local Plans were Examined in Public be noted and measures be taken to ensure this Council avoided the problems others had encountered to date.

The Planning Portfolio Holder introduced a report on the National Planning Policy Framework, one year after its introduction, and invited the Director of Planning & Economic Development to present it.

The Director stated that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was a relatively short document, which had been issued by the Government following a consultation period. It had replaced a large number of lengthy Planning Policy Statements and Guidance Notes, which were often duplicated or conflicted with one another, and which had been issued over a long period of time. This report had followed on from a similar report considered at the Local Plan Cabinet Committee on 25 March 2013 and more information had been provided on those policies considered non-compliant.

The Director advised the Cabinet that policy GB9A, residential conversions of existing buildings within the Green Belt, had been reviewed again since the Cabinet Committee meeting, including further legal advice from Counsel. Whilst there was no legal requirement to actually delete policies that were non compliant until a new Local Plan had formally superseded them, some appeal decisions had described policies as “out of date.” In those cases, the decision taker had concluded that out of date policies should be accorded little or no weight when reaching a decision. Therefore, it was proposed that those adopted policies considered to be non-compliant with the NPPF should remain part of the statutory development plan but be given little or no weight hereafter; in effect, such non-compliant policies would be superseded by the relevant parts of the NPPF.

The Cabinet received further advice from Counsel that non-compliant policies remained relevant when making decisions until they were replaced by the new policies within the Local Plan. Therefore, all planning applications and appeals had to be determined in accordance with existing policies, even if they were currently given little or no weight. If a current policy was not compliant with the NPPF then it should not be given full weight in any decision-making as this could give rise to problems at Appeal hearings, including the potential award of costs against the Council.

The Director of Planning & Economic Development drew the Cabinet’s attention to the experiences of other Councils in bringing forward their new Local Plans. Data from a report by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners indicated that out of 55 Local Plans submitted for examination:

·                     55% of Councils had submitted a plan proposing a reduction in the housing target;

·                     only 18 Local Plans had been found sound;

·                     44% of Councils had to increase their submitted housing target in order to be found sound;

·                     5 of the Local Plans found sound were subject to an immediate or early review of their housing target;

·                     2 Local Plans were withdrawn due to concerns about their potential soundness; and

·                     only 2 Local Plans were found sound with a housing target lower than both the Regional Strategy and household projections, but both were subject to early review.

The Director stressed that the clear message was for Councils to objectively assess  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

(Asset Management and Economic Development Portfolio Holder) To consider the minutes of the meeting of the North Weald Airfield and Asset Management Cabinet Committee, held on 22 April 2013, and any recommendations therein.

N.B…The Council's consultants will be in attendance to update Members on progress with the Strategic Review of the Airfield.

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting of the North Weald Airfield & Asset Management Cabinet Committee, held on 22 April 2013, be noted.

The Portfolio Holder for Asset Management & Economic Development presented the minutes from the recent meeting of the North Weald Airfield & Asset Management Cabinet Committee held on 22 April 2013.

The Cabinet Committee had considered a progress report on the Strategic Review of North Weald Airfield; and an update report from the Asset Management Coordination Group regarding various Council-owned sites.

The Portfolio Holder reported that, in relation to minute 27(1), Sainsbury had not made a planning application but had applied to vary the Section 106 legal agreement in respect of the movement routing restrictions for their heavy goods delivery vehicles. This would be considered by the District Development Control Committee on 26 June 2013. In respect of minute 27(3), the planning application for residential development at Pyrles Lane Nursery had been refused.

The Director of Environment & Street Scene reported that good progress had been made with the strategic review of North Weald Airfield, and the final report was expected to be ready for consideration by the Cabinet on 22 July 2013. Alex Morton from Deloitte Real Estate was in attendance to provide the Cabinet with an update on progress since the Cabinet Committee meeting.

Mr Morton stated that, since the Cabinet Committee meeting on 22 April 2013, the Consultants had:

·                     continued with the public consultation involving a number of stakeholders, including North Weald Bassett Parish Council and Essex County Council on highways matters;

·                     considered the Council’s emerging Leisure Strategy and how the Airfield could contribute to the objectives;

·                     undertaken market testing analysis of possible uses, including commercial, residential, aviation and leisure, which had led to discussions with potential developers and users to determine their interest in the Airfield; and

·                     almost finalised their draft report for discussions with Officers and the cash flow modelling of the principal strategic scenarios.

The Portfolio Holder stated that she was looking forward to receiving the final report from the Strategic Review of the Airfield, and highlighted the local concerns about the continued viability of the Market at the Airfield. Mr Morton responded that the Consultants had appreciated the significance of the Market to the Council, and had sought to retain the existing revenue streams at the Airfield within the principal scenarios.

Decision:

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting of the North Weald Airfield & Asset Management Cabinet Committee, held on 22 April 2013, be noted.

Reasons for Decision:

The Cabinet was 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 was 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.

(Planning Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-006-2013/14).

(1)        That the responses made to the Community Choices (Issues and Options) consultation for the Local Plan, which was held between 30 July and 15 October 2012, be noted;

(2)        That, as suggested by some of the consultation responses received, the following additional criteria for the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) be adopted:

            (a)        protection of highest grade agricultural land;

(b)        comparison of housing sites to assess their deliverability and contribution to overall need; and

            (c)        ability of sites to make provision for new community services and   facilities; and

(3)        That the publication of a summary report of the consultation responses, to include an index, be agreed.

The Planning Portfolio Holder introduced a report on the responses to Community Choices as part of the Local Plan Issues & Options consultation, and invited the Forward Planning Manager to present it.

The Forward Planning Manager reported that the Community Choices consultation document had set out the main issues to be considered by the planning system over the next twenty years, with potential options to address these issues. The main purposes of the consultation were:

            (i)         to ask our communities whether they considered all the relevant issues     and options had been identified in the document;

            (ii)        to receive suggestions for additions, and

            (iii)       to seek views on the options presented in the document.

The Forward Planning Manager emphasised that the Community Choices consultation was not a policy document setting out an intended development plan. However, the consultation was an important part of the evidence gathering process which would help the Council to understand the opinions, concerns and interests of our local communities and would assist the Council to make balanced decisions on land allocations and other planning matters. The public consultation exercises, which were a fundamental part of the preparation of the new Local Plan, would help the Council to engage with the local community, explain the need for change and to find the best solutions when planning new development.

The Forward Planning Manager explained that the questionnaire contained 98 questions, several of which were multi-choice. To simplify the presentation of the large amount of information and opinion included in the responses, this report was in two parts. The main report analysed the number of responses received by response method and location. A summary of responses in question order was then followed by an outline of additional evidence base work, followed by the next steps in plan preparation. The appendix to the main report contained all 98 questions and gave a detailed breakdown of the responses to each of the questions.

The Forward Planning Manager advised that 6,000 responses was a very significant number to be received, at this stage of preparation of the Local Plan, and this would constitute a very substantial addition to the Evidence Base. The continued protection of the Green Belt and the use of brownfield sites were key issues. Concerns were also raised about the provision of infrastructure to support any new development, and a further 70 sites were suggested as potential development sites by the responses received. Other responses included:

·                     concerns about possible urban sprawl around London and Harlow;

·                     more importance to be given to biodiversity, the Forest and the character of existing settlements;

·                     concerns about the figures used for household projections within the District;

·                     the provision of employment land for jobs growth;

·                     substantial support for housing growth on the border of Harlow; and

·                     Spatial Option 1 (proportionate distribution of new development) was favoured, although there were very few responses to this question.

The Forward Planning Manager added that consultants had been appointed to analyse the population data from the 2011 Census, and their report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-005-2013/14).

(1)        That Foster Property Maintenance be awarded a contract being the lowest tender received, renewable annually for up to 5 years, for replacement kitchens at various Council-owned properties throughout the District, with the tenders based on a set of all inclusive combined schedule of rates per m² of kitchen area, all in the sum of £612,933.26;

(2)        That the overall value of the works be limited to the sum included in the Capital Programme on an annual basis;

(3)        That this contract be designated as a serial contract under Contract Standing Order C11 to facilitate the annual increase in the schedule of rate items in accordance with The Department of Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform Building Cost Indices; and

(4)        That Contract Standing Order C5 (Contracts in excess of £50,000) and C12 (Sub-Contractors and Nominated Suppliers) be waived in respect of the nominated supply of kitchen units by Premier Kitchens.

The Housing Portfolio Holder presented a report on the award of the contract for replacement kitchens at various Council-owned properties.

The Portfolio Holder advised the Cabinet that tenders had been sought in accordance with Contract Standing Orders for the replacement kitchen programme, as part of the new Modern Homes Standard. However, as part of that tender, the Council had specified the kitchen supplier and range as part of the contract conditions in order to maintain the quality and long-term guarantees for replacement parts.  Such a nomination required a waiver of Contract Standing Order C5 (Contracts in excess of £50,000) and C12 (Sub-Contractors and Nominated Suppliers) as the value of the supply was in excess of 10% of the prime-cost sum. The Council would not enter into a separate contract for the supply, but would expect the framework contractor to supply the kitchens as specified.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the existing framework agreement with the current contractor had reached the end of its term, and as such it was necessary to re-tender the works. However, when the Council first started its kitchen replacement programme in 2001 as part of the Decent Homes programme, the Council specified a quality product based on long-term guarantees for moving parts, 20-25 year lifecycle testing, and long-term guarantees on the supply of matching replacement parts. In order to maintain this quality, continuity and consistency, it was recommended that the existing kitchen range continue to be nominated and supplied through the Framework Contractor. Five tenders had been received, and the lowest tender had been submitted by Foster Property Maintenance. This bid was also fully compliant with all of the tender requirements, and therefore it was recommended that Foster Property Maintenance be awarded the contract.

The Cabinet welcomed the plan to upgrade all Council properties from the current ‘Decent Homes’ standard to the higher ‘Modern Homes’ standard, and noted that all tendered schedule of rate items would be increased annually in line with the appropriate Department of Trade & Industry Building Cost indices.

Decision:

(1)        That Foster Property Maintenance be awarded a contract being the lowest tender received, renewable annually for up to 5 years, for replacement kitchens at various Council-owned properties throughout the District, with the tenders based on a set of all inclusive combined schedule of rates per m² of kitchen area, all in the sum of £612,933.26;

(2)        That the overall value of the works be limited to the sum included in the Capital Programme on an annual basis;

(3)        That this contract be designated as a serial contract under Contract Standing Order C11 to facilitate the annual increase in the schedule of rate items in accordance with The Department of Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform Building Cost Indices; and

(4)        That Contract Standing Order C5 (Contracts in excess of £50,000) and C12 (Sub-Contractors and Nominated Suppliers) be waived in respect of the nominated supply of kitchen units by Premier Kitchens.

Reasons for Decision:

To accept the lowest bid that complied with all the tender  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-001-2013/14).

(1)        That Contract Standing Order C5 (Contracts in excess of £50,000) and C12 (Sub-Contractors and Nominated Suppliers) be waived in respect of the nominated supply of External Wall Insulation system by Alsecco.

The Housing Portfolio Holder introduced a report seeking approval of the Council’s nominated supplier for external wall insulation.

The Portfolio Holder explained that, with the launch of Energy Company Obligation (ECO) funding in January 2013, the Council had an opportunity to apply external wall insulation to hard-to-heat solid wall properties funded almost entirely by grant funding. Alsecco, who were a major supplier of external wall insulation (EWI), were able to offer a full design and project management service as well as a 60-year guarantee on their product. They had been working with the Council to identify the properties that would benefit from the highest levels of grant funding, and had sought on behalf of the Council grant amounting to approximately 80% of the total cost of the works. The Council had already installed external wall insulation supplied by Alsecco on three semi-detached properties in Walls Green, which had transformed the external appearance and energy efficiency properties of these rural properties, much to the satisfaction of the residents.

The Cabinet welcomed the scheme, as it would assist those residents in fuel poverty and help to reduce the carbon emissions within the District.

Decision:

(1)        That Contract Standing Order C5 (Contracts in excess of £50,000) and C12 (Sub-Contractors and Nominated Suppliers) be waived in respect of the nominated supply of External Wall Insulation system by Alsecco.

Reasons for Decision:

During the initial feasibility study, only Alsecco offered a 60-year guarantee on their external wall insulation system; other suppliers only offered a 30-year guarantee. This was more attractive to ECO funders, due to the longer period of time over which reductions in carbon emissions could be offset, which was a key consideration for funders.

In nominating a single supplier,  a waiver of Contract Standing Order C5 (Contracts in excess of £50,000) and C12 (Sub-Contractors and Nominated Suppliers) was required.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To open the tender up on the basis of supply and installation using a performance specification stating a requirement for a 60-year guarantee. However, only one supplier was able to fulfil this and the Council would have to survey, work up the designs and project manage the works and apply for grants, which would require an additional resource.

To nominate an alternative supplier. However, the Council would not benefit from such a long guarantee, which was unlikely to attract such a good grant contribution, and would not benefit from a full design and supervision service.

To not undertake the works. However, the Council would not then benefit from the ECO funding available for its hard-to-heat solid wall properties.

(Support Services Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-004-2013/14).

(1)        That the revised Policy and Procedure for dealing with the requirements of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (as amended) (RIPA) be recommended to the Council for adoption;

(2)        That, for the purposes of RIPA, the appointment of the Director of Corporate Support Services as the Senior Responsible Officer and the Assistant to the Chief Executive as the Deputy Senior Responsible Officer be recommended to the Council for approval;

(3)        That the appointment of the Director of Corporate Support Services and the Assistant to the Chief Executive as Authorising Officers for the purposes of RIPA be recommended to the Council for approval;

(4)        That the method of reporting the use of RIPA authorisations by an annual report to the Corporate Governance Group followed by publication in the Council Bulletin be agreed;

(5)        That no RIPA authorisations were granted for the period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 be noted; and

(6)        That the proposed training programme to embed the new procedure be noted.

The Portfolio Holder for Support Services presented a report on the revised Policy and Procedure for dealing with the requirements of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), which related to the gathering of evidence by covert means to support the Council’s regulatory or enforcement activities.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the annual total of authorisations had reduced over time as the Council had become more adept at finding ways of gathering evidence which avoided intrusive action. Only 22 authorisations had been granted to the Council since 2002, with none requested during 2012/13. An inspection of the Council’s systems and records by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners had taken place on 31 January 2013. The Inspector’s findings were generally positive but 3 recommendations were made to which the Council was obliged to respond:

(i)         RIPA guidance notes to be re-drafted within a formal procedural document for formal reporting to elected Members of the authority;

(ii)        a central record of authorisations to be re-introduced; and

(iii)       authorisation periods to comply with statutory requirements.

The Portfolio Holder advised the Cabinet that, in respect of the first recommendation, the revised Policy and Procedure Notes (attached as an Appendix to these minutes) required approval for an authorisation from a Magistrates’ Court as well as from one of the two authorised Officers. Authorisations would be reported to Members via the Council Bulletin. In respect of the second recommendation, a central record was maintained but some format changes were requested, which had been implemented. Finally, in respect of the third recommendation, all authorisations should be granted for a period of three months, but cancelled once the surveillance had been completed.

The Portfolio Holder stated that the Director of Corporate Support Services intended to organise and deliver training courses for appropriate Senior and Operational Officers, to raise awareness and ensure that the revised Policy was understood and implemented. In addition, the two authorised Officers would attend external training as appropriate.

Decision:

(1)        That the revised Policy and Procedure for dealing with the requirements of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (as amended) (RIPA) be recommended to the Council for adoption;

(2)        That, for the purposes of RIPA, the appointment of the Director of Corporate Support Services as the Senior Responsible Officer and the Assistant to the Chief Executive as the Deputy Senior Responsible Officer be recommended to the Council for approval;

(3)        That the appointment of the Director of Corporate Support Services and the Assistant to the Chief Executive as Authorising Officers for the purposes of RIPA be recommended to the Council for approval;

(4)        That the method of reporting the use of RIPA authorisations by an annual report to the Corporate Governance Group followed by publication in the Council Bulletin be agreed;

(5)        That no RIPA authorisations were granted for the period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 be noted; and

(6)        That the proposed training programme to embed the new procedure be noted.

Reasons for Decision:

To comply with the amendments to the Regulation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

(Planning Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-002-2013/14).

(1)        That authority be granted to carry forward an £11,600, underspend from 2012/13 to 2013/14 from the Planning Support Budget for Document Scanning (37 100 3342); and

(2)        That this underspend be combined with a smaller salary underspend to fund one Grade 3 Administration Assistant post to scan the large site paper planning files which were considered too complex and detailed to be sent to Northgate for scanning as part of the standard ‘back scanning’ of records process.

The Planning Portfolio Holder presented a report concerning the carry forward of a budget underspend and the funding of an additional post within the Planning & Economic Development Directorate for document scanning.

The Portfolio Holder stated that the Planning and Economic Development Directorate had had in place long term plans to progressively reduce its dependency on paper records and at the same time to improve both the quality and quantity of historic planning records available online. Appendix 2 of the report - Electronic Records Management Progress Plan of the 2013/14 Directorate Business Plan - detailed the requirement to convert to electronic format large site development control files, conservation files and contaminated land files. There was a high level of interest in these records by members of the public and professionals within the District and in addition it was also considered that this would reduce the number of Freedom of Information requests, as these records were currently only available during office hours at the Civic Offices in paper format.

The Portfolio Holder explained that the carry forward of this budget underspend and its combination with a smaller salary underspend would enable the Directorate to appoint for a fixed term of ten months, one Grade 3 Administration Assistant to carry out the scanning of large site development control files, conservation files and contaminated land files. This new, temporary post would assist the Directorate with its plans to move away from paper records to electronic format, in order to reduce the need for file storage space.

The Director of Planning & Economic Development added that the damage caused by the burst water pipe suffered by the Council over the weekend also highlighted the need to get the existing planning paper documents scanned as quickly as possible.

Decision:

(1)        That authority be granted to carry forward an £11,600, underspend from 2012/13 to 2013/14 from the Planning Support Budget for Document Scanning (37 100 3342); and

(2)        That this underspend be combined with a smaller salary underspend to fund one Grade 3 Administration Assistant post to scan the large site paper planning files which were considered too complex and detailed to be sent to Northgate for scanning as part of the standard ‘back scanning’ of records process.

Reasons for Decision:

The proposed carry forward of the unspent budget of £11,000 would facilitate the reduction and dependency on paper records as part of the Electronic Records Management Progress Plan identified in the Directorate Business Plan for 2013/14. This was a key element in moving away from paper based office systems to Electronic Record and Document Management Systems (ERDMS).

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To do nothing. However, this would mean that the Directorate would take longer to complete the changeover from paper based records and delay the progression of Electronic Record and Document Management Systems (ERDMS) development,  combined with the extended use of relatively costly filing storage space.

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.

It was noted that there was no other urgent business for consideration by the Cabinet.