Agenda and minutes

This meeting is to be webcast. Members are reminded of the need to activate their microphones before speaking. The Democratic and Electoral Services Team Manager will read the following announcement:

“The chairman would like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live to the internet (or filmed) and will be capable of repeated viewing (or another use by such third parties).

If you are seated in the lower public seating area it is likely that the recording cameras will capture your image and this will result in the possibility that your image will become part of the broadcast.

This may infringe your human and data protection rights and if you wish to avoid this you should move to the upper public gallery.”

The Democratic Services Manager reminded everyone present that the meeting would be broadcast live to the Internet, and that the Council had adopted a protocol for the webcasting of its meetings.

To declare interests in any item on the agenda.

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

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 28 July 2022, as attached.

            RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 11 October 2022 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Two minute silence to held in honour of the life of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, followed by tributes to be paid by the Chairman of Council, Group Leaders and other Members.

The Chairman invited Council to join her in two minutes silence as a mark of respect for the late Queen Elizabeth II.

The Chairman of Council delivered the first response followed by the Leader of Council, Group Leaders and other Members of the Council who paid fitting and respectful tributes to Her late Majesty.

The Council expressed its sadness at the passing of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and conveyed their gratitude and thanks for Her late Majesty’s unstinting and dedicated service to the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms during her 70 year reign.

(a)        Chairman’s Announcements

(a)        Announcements by the Chairman of the Council

(i)      Operation London Bridge

The Chairman expressed her sincere thanks to Tom Carne, the Corporate Communications team and all those involved who worked extremely hard in the period following on from the death of Her late Majesty. She also recognised the hard and dedicated work of Pat Seager, who had been involved in coordinating every aspect of what had to be put in place as set out in ‘Operation London Bridge’. Her attention to detail ensured that everything which had to be done, was done in an extremely professional manner.

This included working with the Reverend Lee Batson and Epping Town Council to organise a very well attended service to commemorate the life of Her late Majesty, which was held in St John’s Church in Epping on the 14 September 2022.

The Chairman also thanked everyone for attending the service and also for attending the Civic Offices for the reading of the Proclamation of the Accession of King Charles III.

The Chairman advised that she represented the district at the Service of Commemoration and Thanksgiving which was held in Chelmsford Cathedral on the 18 September 2022

(ii)          Children`s Summer Holiday Activities

The Chairman highlighted the Wellbeing & Community Partnerships Portfolio Holder report regarding the Children’s Summer Holiday Activities that was put in place by the Council. She advised that she attended a few of the activities, which were very well attended and appreciated by the parents of the children who attended these activities.

The Play in the Park roadshows was one of activities that happened in different wards of the district and it was thought, that in the coming year, it would be good for members to attend this event in their ward to see what was being provided for our young people in the district.

(iii)       Opening of Spinks House

The Chairman attended the opening of Spinks House, a pair of semi detached houses in Waltham Abbey, which had been named after the late former Councillor Don Spinks. She cut the ribbon alongside his widow Liz Webster, who was also a former member of the Council and a Waltham Abbey Town Councillor.

To answer questions asked after notice in accordance with the provisions contained within Part 4 of the Council Rules of the Constitution on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties or which affects the District:

(a)        to the Leader of the Council;

(b)        to any Portfolio Holder; or

(c)        to the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Questions, if any, will follow if not received in time to be incorporated into the agenda.

(1)        Public Question from Mr J Padfield

Tilegate Farm

The residential development of nine acres of open field Green Belt in Magdalen Laver remains a source of concern for the Residents of the Lavers. Documentation downloaded and retained by the Parish Council Clerk from the Council’s Planning Search website indicates that Officers granted a residential permission to a newly erected “stables”. The permission included the dumping of many hundreds of tons of waste material under the pretext of “landscaping”. The Parish Council notified the District Council about the dumping and queried the residential permission. The entire Application documentation was then internally removed from the Council records including from EFDC Planning Search.

The investigation undertaken by the District Councils Internal Auditors denies the veracity of the Parish Clerk’s documents copied from the Councils website, they state: “Without a proper digital forensic investigation, which would be costly to the Council, the documents you submitted as evidence of their existence cannot be verified.” No consideration has been given by the Auditor as to how and why a Parish Council Clerk would both fraudulently construct these documents and also fabricate the associated contemporaneous email trail between the Parish Council and the District Council. No explanation has been given as to why the “Stables” were built to residential standards. This issue is just one of many on the site. Yet another Application is pending. Probity in the planning system is absolutely critical to its function. Should not the Council now properly investigate this issue whatever the cost?

Question by Mr Jim Padfield, resident of Moreton and High Laver to Councillor J Philip, Finance Portfolio Holder.

Tilegate Farm

The residential development of nine acres of open field Green Belt in Magdalen Laver remains a source of concern for the Residents of the Lavers. Documentation downloaded and retained by the Parish Council Clerk from the Council’s Planning Search website indicates that Officers granted a residential permission to a newly erected “stables”. The permission included the dumping of many hundreds of tons of waste material under the pretext of “landscaping”. The Parish Council notified the District Council about the dumping and queried the residential permission. The entire Application documentation was then internally removed from the Council records including from EFDC Planning Search.

The investigation undertaken by the District Councils Internal Auditors denies the veracity of the Parish Clerk’s documents copied from the Councils website, they state: “Without a proper digital forensic investigation, which would be costly to the Council, the documents you submitted as evidence of their existence cannot be verified.” No consideration has been given by the Auditor as to how and why a Parish Council Clerk would both fraudulently construct these documents and also fabricate the associated contemporaneous email trail between the Parish Council and the District Council. No explanation has been given as to why the “Stables” were built to residential standards. This issue is just one of many on the site. Yet another Application is pending. Probity in the planning system is absolutely critical to its function. Should not the Council now properly investigate this issue whatever the cost?

Response given by Councillor J Philip, Finance Portfolio Holder.

At the request of the Chief Executive, the Chief Internal Auditor, who was independent of the Council, and the Council’s Corporate Fraud Manager examined seventeen allegations from Mr Padfield suggesting potential fraud and collusion regarding the Tilegate Development. The investigation involved interviews with relevant officers and a review of planning files as well as the documentation available to the public on the Council’s website.

On the 19 April 2022, the Chief Internal Auditor gave a detailed reply back to Mr Padfield, to each of the 17 allegations and concluded in her letter, “Our investigation has not found any evidence of fraud by Council officers. The information supplied by the applicant has been appropriately scrutinised by officers and there was no evidence of favouritism. Several officers were involved in the process and sign off / approval was granted at the appropriate levels. Unless you are able to provide new or fresh evidence of fraud, I deem this investigation to be closed.”

On 20 April 2022 Mr Padfield formally replied to the Chief Internal Auditor’s letter with further concerns regarding the residential stable conversion, with the nub of Mr Padfield’s email being the Council’s denial of the existence of an application. As with the original investigation, the relevant officers were interviewed, with a review of planning files, as well as the documentation available to the public on the Council’s website.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

To answer questions asked after notice in accordance with the provisions contained within the Council’s rules in Part 4 of the Constitution on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties or which affects the District:

(a)                  to the Chairman of the Council;

(b)                  to the Leader of the Council;

(c)                  to any Member of the Cabinet; or

(d)                  the Chairman of any Committee or Sub-Committee.

The Council’s rules provide that answers to questions under notice may take the form of:

(a)             direct oral answer;

(b)             where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication; or

(c)             where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to the questioner.

Answers to questions falling within (a) and (b) above will be made available to the member asking the question one hour before the meeting. Answers to questions falling within (c) above will be circulated to all councillors.

Questions, if any, will follow if not received in time to be incorporated into the agenda.

The Council noted that there were no questions by members under notice that had been submitted for consideration at this meeting.

To receive reports and any announcements from the Leader and members of the Cabinet on matters falling within their area of responsibility:

(a)        Report of the Leader of Council (verbal);

(b)        Report of the Place Portfolio Holder (attached);

(c)        Report of the Finance Portfolio Holder (attached);

(d)        Report of the Housing & Community Portfolio Holder (attached);

(e)        Report of the Wellbeing & Community Partnerships Portfolio Holder (attached);

(f)         Report of the Customer Portfolio Holder (attached);

(g)        Report of the Contracts & Commissioning Portfolio Holder (attached);

(h)        Report of the Technical Services Portfolio Holder (attached); and

(i)         Report of the Internal Resources Portfolio Holder (attached).

The Council received written reports from Portfolio Holders. The Chairman invited the Leader of Council to provide an oral report and the opportunity for other members of the Cabinet to give updates on matters concerning their relevant portfolios.

(a)        Leader of Council

Councillor C Whitbread asked for his name to be associated with the Chairmans earlier comments on congratulating Pat Seager, Tom Carne and the Corporate Communications Team on how well and professional they acted on bringing Operation London Bridge into fruition.

Since the last Council meeting, he reported that he had been having regular meetings with the Harlow and Gilston Garden Town board, separate to the meetings where issues were discussed that were pertinent to Epping Forest in making sure that it was understood what was happening.

He advised that the Council were also playing an active role in the devolution piece following on from the Governments White Paper on Levelling Up. There was a certain element of this paper that the Council hoped to get the best from for the district in the future. It was not devolution that was originally anticipated with local government reform, this was very much around seeing how the Council can operate better as a West Essex Alliance. The work between Uttlesford, Harlow and Epping Forest along that corridor were going to become more important as time goes on, bearing in mind, that the Government have now announced investment loans. This Council was committed to getting the best we can for the people of Epping Forest, whether that be in skills, employment and opportunities because we want to see Epping Forest prosper and do well. In order to do this, as a Council, we need to make sure that we remain in a good financial position and stated that he had been working closely with Councillor J Philip, Finance Portfolio Holder to deliver a budget in the most productive way possible.

He stated that he was proud of the progress that this Council were making with its Council Housebuilding Programme, where we were seeing the delivery of quality council homes for the future.

The Corporate Plan was being developed, which was a strategic document for the future and was an important piece of work that we had been doing collaboratively across the council which has been challenging as it was a very difficult time for everyone, the cost-of-living crisis that was affecting residents across the district, and the impact on us as a Council as we were all affected by inflation.

(b)        Internal Resources Portfolio Holder

Councillor S Kane advised that he would like to update members on the Local Land Charges position. Members will be aware that there had been quite a backlog over the last few months with up to 10 weeks and more for land searches to be completed. This was a result of a government initiative to centralise the registry search function with an online database. The Council have had to upload over 60,000 records to the central system,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

The Council’s rules provide for questions by any member of the Council to the Leader or any Portfolio Holder, without notice on:

(i)            reports under the previous item; or

(ii)           any other matter of a non operational character in relation to the powers and  duties of the Council or which affects all or part of the District or some or all of  its inhabitants.

The Council’s rules provide that answers to questions without notice may take the form of:

(a)            a direct oral answer from the Leader or, at the request of the Leader, from another member of the Cabinet;

(b)            where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication;

(c)            where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to the questioner; or

(d)            where the question relates to an operational matter, the Leader or a member of the Cabinet will request that a response be given direct to the questioner by the relevant Service Director.

In accordance with the Council’s rules, a time limit of thirty minutes is set for questions. Any question not dealt with within the time available will receive a written reply. The Chairman may extend this period by up to a further ten minutes at their discretion.

(a)        Refuse Services

Councillor S Murray stated his question was to the Contracts and Commissioning Portfolio Holder and in his absence, he asked if he could put his question to the Leader of Council?

He stated that there had been varying differences with the refuse services recently and he noted that the Council were going out to tender for the contract, he asked what lessons have the Council learnt from this experience over the last 6 months and how were those lessons going to be reflected in the new tender?

Councillor C Whitbread stated that he arrived home from work this evening to find his bin had not been emptied, the bottles hadn’t either and the recycling bags had blown across the road. He sympathised with residents as he knew and understood their frustrations with the service Biffa were currently affording to residents across the district.

There had recently been a meeting with Biffa where we asked them for more live information to be supplied to us and to his knowledge that had not happened. Their website was never up to date with the correct information and he was as frustrated as every other resident in the district with this problem.

The lessons learned, not all of this was Biffa’s fault. A year ago, we were commending Biffa for keeping their operations running smoothly during the Pandemic, so what has changed. Biffa were currently trying to retain a workforce and that was the biggest issue.

The Council do not have money they have residents’ money to pay for services and we will make sure, as a Council, that we hold Biffa responsible for providing this service.

(b)        Council House Delivery

Councillor H Kane asked the Housing Portfolio Holder if she could advise about the Council’s record of the council house delivery and regeneration in Waltham Abbey?

Councillor H Whitbread advised that Waltham Abbey was the place where the Council started its house building programme 10 years ago. There were 10 properties that were due to be delivered in Waltham Abbey this year, there was Spinks House, which had been referred to earlier in her portfolio holder report, this consisted of two large new family homes for local people. There was another development in Waltham Abbey which would provide another 8 affordable units. Waltham Abbey was a key place where the Council want to deliver new homes. We have, as a Council, always been committed to continue with the delivery of new Council housing stock and the 30-year business plan set out an ambitious target for delivery.

Harveyfields in Waltham Abbey recently had £114,000 spent on a regeneration programme which included, tidying up the bin areas, looking at the paving and the outdoor spaces. Regeneration was the core of the Councils bricks and mortar which she spoke about often in meetings.

(c)        Homeless Enquiries

Councillor C Amos referred to the report of the Housing Portfolio Holder and asked about the 91 homeless enquiries during the month of August and wondered if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

To consider any motions, notice of which has been given under the Council’s rules.

Motions, if any, will follow if not received in time to be incorporated into the agenda.

The Chairman reported that there were no motions to be considered at the meeting.

To agree the report recommending thatthe Ongar NeighbourhoodPlan be‘made’ (adopted)as partof theEpping ForestDistrict’s statutorydevelopment Plan.

Mover: Councillor N Bedford, Place Portfolio Holder

Councillor N Bedford advised that all the details of the Ongar Neighbourhood Plan were contained in the report on page 59 of the agenda

He had asked officers to prepare some questions and answers that he may have been asked or assist in understanding the plan and what implications it might have going forward:

(a)        What weight will the policies in the Ongar Neighbour Plan have once it was made (adopted) by the Council?

Once the Ongar Neighbourhood Plan was ‘made’ by the Council it would form part of the statutory development plan. Consequently, its policies will carry full weight in assessing planning applications where the Ongar Neighbourhood Plan was considered to be a material consideration. This is stated in paragraph 1.2 of the Ongar Neighbourhood Plan itself.

(b)        What happens if a policy or policies contained within the Ongar Neighbourhood Plan conflicted with a policy or policies in the adopted Local Plan (adopted 1998 with alterations 2006)?

The Ongar Neighbourhood Plan had been developed with full regard to the policies contained in the adopted Local Plan. However should a policy conflict arise between the two Plans Section 38(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document to become part of the development plan. This would therefore be the policy or policies in the Ongar Neighbourhood Plan.

(c)        What is the relationship between the policies in the Ongar Neighbourhood Plan’s and the policies in the emerging Local Plan?

There was no legal requirement to examine the Ongar Neighbourhood Plan policies against policies in the emerging Plan. However, as the Ongar Neighbourhood Plan states at section 5.4 ‘Local Strategic Policies’:

‘It is advisable to take account of the emerging Epping Forest Local Plan 2011 to 2033. The evidence behind the emerging local plan was part of the evidence base for the neighbourhood plan (where relevant).’

It goes on to state in the same section that:

‘The Ongar Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (Ongar Neighbourhood Plan Community Group ONPCG) has worked in liaison with Epping Forest District Council throughout the preparation of the plan to reduce the risk of disparities between the emerging Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan.’

(d)            What weight will the policies in the Ongar Neighbourhood Plan (ONP) have if the emerging Local Plan was adopted by the Council in the future?

The Ongar Neighbourhood Plan will sit alongside a newly adopted Local Plan as part of the Development Plan and as such its policies will continue to attract full weight in relation to planning applications where the Ongar Neighbourhood Plan was considered to be a material consideration.

(e)            What happens if a policy or policies contained within the Ongar Neighbourhood Plan conflicted with a newly adopted Local Plan policy or policies?

Section 5.4 ‘Local Strategic Policies’ of the Ongar Neighbourhood Plan states that:

‘The Ongar Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (Ongar  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

(Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee) To consider the attached report recommending that the Annual Report of the Audit and Governance Committee 2021/22 be noted.

Councillor P Bolton, Chairman of the Audit & Governance Committee

Councillor P Bolton reported on the Audit & Governance Annual Report for 2021/22.

The Finance Portfolio Holder, Councillor J Philip thanked Councillor I Hadley, Chairman for the 2021/22 municipal year and members of the Audit and Governance Committee for their work throughout the year

RESOLVED:

That the Audit & Governance Annual Report for 2021/22 be noted.

To receive the report of the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and to answer any questions without notice asked in accordance with Council Rules.

Councillor H Kane, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Councillor H Kane presented her progress report from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings held on the 26 July 2022 and 27 September 2022.

She advised that an extra meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been called for Thursday 3 November 2022 to scrutinise the business case for the transfer of the Grounds Maintenance to Qualis.

            RESOLVED:

That the progress report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings held on the 26 July 2022 and 27 September 2022 be noted.

(a)          To receive from Council representatives the reports (attached - if any) on the business of joint arrangements and external organisations and to receive answers to any questions on those bodies which may be put without notice; and

(b)               To request written reports from representatives on joint arrangements and external organisations for future meetings.

(a)        The Royal Gunpowder Mills

The Council received a written the report regarding the Royal Gunpowder Mills from Councillor H Kane, the Council’s representative. She advised that the Royal Gunpowder Mills was now open to the public every weekend and that there were lots of tourists visiting from all over the country but very few from the district.

(b)        There were no requests made for written reports by representatives on joint arrangements and external organisations for the next meeting.