Agenda and minutes

1.         This meeting is to be webcast. Members are reminded of the need to activate their microphones before speaking.

2.         The Chief Executive will read the following announcement:

“This meeting will be webcast live to the Internet and will be archived for later viewing. Copies of recordings may be made available on request.

By entering the Chamber’s lower seating area you consenting to becoming part of the webcast.

If you wish to avoid being filmed you should move to the public gallery or speak to the webcasting officer”

The Assistant to the Chief Executive, on behalf of the Chairman of the Council 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 approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2012 (attached).

            RESOLVED:

            That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2012 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record subject to the addition of the following preamble to Minute 48 (Report of the Cabinet – Supplementary DDF Estimate – North Weald Airfield Consultancy):

            “Councillor Watson sought an assurance that a report would be made to the next Council meeting specifying how the Local Plan process and the North Weald Airfield Consultancy exercise would dovetail in terms of key dates.

            Councillor Grigg agreed to report to the next Council meeting on this matter”.

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

(a)       Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Gadsby declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in agenda item 20 (Representation on Outside Organisation – Grange Farm Managing Trustees).  The Councillor stated that she would leave the meeting for the consideration and voting on this matter.

(b)       Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Smith declared a non-pecuniary interest under the paragraph 8.1 of the Code in agenda item 20 (Representation on Outside Organisation – Grange Farm Managing Trustees) by virtue of being a Trustee of the Grange Farm Trust nominated by the District Council.  The Councillor stated that as the item related to the filling of a vacancy on the Trust and did not constitute a disclosable pecuniary interest as it did not involve any regulatory decision which affected the Trust’s interests she proposed to remain in the meeting for the consideration and voting on that item.

(c)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Sartin declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 8 (Motions – Stansted Airport – Proposed Charges) by virtue of being the Council’s appointed representative on the Stansted Airport Consultative Committee.  The Councillor stated that she would remain in the meeting for the consideration and voting on this matter.

(d)       Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Church declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 6 (Report of the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder – Highways and Planning) by virtue of owning a property in a road adjoining St John’s Road which was to be the subject of a residents’ parking scheme and in respect of which he would be asking a question later in the meeting.

(a)            Apologies for Absence

(b)            Announcements

To consider any announcements by:

(i)         the Chairman of the Council;

(ii)        the Leader of the Council; and

(iii)       any other Cabinet Member.

(a)       Announcements by the Chairman of the Council

(i)         Civic Lunch – 27 September 2012

The Chairman reported on the Civic Lunch held at the Lambourne End Outdoor Centre which had been attended by the Chairmen and Mayors of other local authorities.  He advised that this had been an opportunity for the Centre to make itself known to the civic representatives throughout the county and that as a result of the day he understood that Southend Borough Council would be considering the arrangement of trips and courses to the Centre for people from Southend.  The Chairman reported that all the food for the lunch had been produced on the site.  He advised members that he had donated £1,000 from his charity to the Centre to assist them in furthering their work.

The Chairman reported that during the day he had agreed to attend the opening of a new 350 metre zip-wire at the Centre and as a result had been expected to ride on the wire.  He reported that he had successfully completed the run and he thanked those members who had agreed to sponsor him for his charity and encouraged others to do so even though it was now after the event.

(ii)        International Day for the Elderly

The Chairman reported that the UK Older People’s Day had been held on 1 October 2012 to coincide with the UN International Day for Older Persons.  The main aim of the day had been a national celebration of the achievements and contributions that older people had made to society.  He advised that it had presented an opportunity for older people to meet with younger people and that the celebrations in this district had been a great success.

(iii)       Carol Service

The Chairman referred to the Council’s Carol Service being held at St John’s Church, Epping on 14 December 2012.  He advised members that they had already received an invitation to this event and he expressed the hope that they would all be able to attend.

(iii)       Floral Display

The Chairman announced that he intended to send the flowers from tonight’s meeting to Frank Foster House at Theydon Bois.

(b)       Announcements by the Leader of the Council

The Leader advised that he had no announcements to be make under this heading.

(c)       Announcements by Portfolio Holders

(i)         Asset Management and Economic Development Portfolio Holder

Councillor Grigg referred to the request made by Councillor Watson at the last meeting as to how the review of North Weald Airfield was to be managed to ensure that it dovetailed with the development of the Local Plan.

Councillor Grigg stated that at the last meeting she had confirmed that a review of the Airfield would be a material part of the development of the Local Plan.  She continued that the brief to be issued to consultants, as part of the procurement process, was considered and approved, subject to any amendments agreed by herself, at the North Weald Airfield and Asset Management Cabinet Committee on 30  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

To answer questions asked after notice in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraph 9.3 of the Council Procedure 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 the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee; or

(c)          to any Portfolio Holder.

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

(a)        Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation

(i)         By Mr G Osen, Chigwell Residents’ Association to Councillor Bassett, Planning Portfolio Holder

In the absence of Mr G Osen, by leave of the Council, the following question was asked by Mr E Bow, Chairman of the Chigwell Residents’ Association

“ Does the Council generally consider and/or implement the views of the Local Plan inspector?”

Response by Councillor Bassett, Planning Portfolio Holder

“The new Local Plan will be subject to an Examination in Public conducted by an independent Inspector who will review the evidence gathered by the Council and decide whether or not the plan is sound.

         The examination process provides the opportunity to respond to the views of the Inspector once he has the opportunity to form an opinion”.

(ii)        By Mr G Osen, Chigwell Residents’ Association to Councillor Bassett, Planning Portfolio Holder

In the absence of Mr G Osen, by leave of the Council, the following question was asked by Mr E Bow, Chairman of the Chigwell Residents’ Association

“The Local Plan inspector has previously stated that Chigwell Brook Valley is strategically important (i.e. 'the  potential loss of this area of Green Belt for residential development would have  a significant impact on the setting of the Chigwell Brook Valley').  Therefore as development on CHG-D would destroy this area of Green Belt will this result in it being removed from the draft Plan?”

Response by Councillor Bassett, Planning Portfolio Holder

“The question is not specific about which previous Inspector is referred to, so it is difficult to comment further.  However, the position at a national and regional level has changed since the last Inspector’s report into Local Plan Alterations in 2006.

The current process is undertaking the comprehensive review of available sites suggested by the Inspector in that report.

If Mr Osen would like to provide some further details we will endeavour to provide a more specific answer”.

Supplementary Question from Mr Bow

Mr Bow asked the Portfolio Holder if he agreed that the housing proposals for the Chigwell Brook Valley as set out in the Local Plan consultation document would have a huge impact and destroy that area.

Reply to the supplementary question from Councillor Bassett

Councillor Bassett emphasised that the consultation to date had been on all the issues and options identified.  He said that he was aware that there had been many responses from Chigwell residents and he would like to take this opportunity to thank those who had responded.  He continued that the current list of issues and options would now be considered by members in a series of workshops and at that stage councillors would be able to stress points made by respondents to the recent consultation exercise.  Councillor Bassett stated that this could then result in the removal of sites which were not considered suitable or which might cause problems for the community.  He repeated that at this stage no decisions had been made with respect to any sites.

(iii)       By Mr E  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

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

(a)         Report of the Leader;

(b)     Report of the Asset Management and Economic Development Portfolio Holder;

(c)         Report of the Environment Portfolio Holder;

(d)     Report of the Finance and Technology Portfolio Holder;

(e)        Report of the Housing Portfolio Holder;

(f)      Report of the Leisure and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder;

(g)         Report of the Planning Portfolio Holder;    

(h)     Report of the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder;

(i)      Report of the Support Services Portfolio Holder.

The Council received written reports from the Asset Management and Economic Development Portfolio Holder, the Environment Portfolio Holder, the Finance and Technology Portfolio Holder, the Housing Portfolio Holder, the Leisure and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder, the Planning Portfolio Holder, the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder and the Support Services Portfolio Holder.

The Chairman invited the Leader to provide an oral report and other members of the Cabinet to give an oral update of their written reports.

(a)        Leader of the Council

Councillor Whitbread reported that as Chairman of One Epping Forest, the Local Strategic Partnership, he had attended a meeting of the Board at which there had been a presentation from the Head of Planning and Regeneration of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority.  He advised that the presentation had focussed on the Park Authority’s aspirations for the future and in particular how they planned to maximise the legacy benefit of the Olympics facility.  Councillor Whitbread reported that the Board meeting had also received an update on the work being undertaken by the Tourism Sub-Committee.  He advised that this Sub-Committee brought together a range of partners to promote the opportunities to visit this area and hopefully spend money as well as time in the district to aid the local economy.  The Portfolio Holder drew attention to the website they had recently developed – www.visiteppingforest.org  – which had already received several thousand hits.

The Leader reported that together with the Asset Management and Economic Development Portfolio Holder he had met representatives of the Local Chamber of Commence to explore what further steps the Council could take to support local businesses.  He said that he proposed to bring forward some of those ideas to a future meeting.

Councillor Whitbread reported that he had attended a conference on 12 October run by One Epping Forest to discuss some of the implications of the changes in the delivery of Health Services within the district.  He advised that further details of this conference were contained in the Leisure and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder’s report and he expressed the view that it had been very useful to bring key partners together to discuss the issues.

The Leader stated that he had met the Chairman and Clerk of North Weald Bassett Parish Council and the two local Ward Members to discuss future play provision in the village and to clarify the issue of landing fees and operating costs of North Weald Airfield.  He stated that he understood the Parish Council would now be undertaking some community consultation on suitable locations for a playground and to address some of the young persons’ issues in the area.

Councillor Whitbread stated that the previous week he had meet County Councillor John Aldridge, appointed as lead liaison member for this district.  Councillor Whitbread stated this had been a useful meeting and that he was confident the new Locality Board arrangements in the form of revised terms of reference for the existing Cabinet, Management Board, local County Councillors, local M.P’s quarterly meetings would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Council Procedure Rule 12.6 provides for questions by any member of the Council to the Leader or any Portfolio Holder, without notice on:

(i)   reports under item 6 above; 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.

Council Procedure Rule 12.7 provides that answers to questions without notice may take the form of:

(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 Chief Officer.

In accordance with the Council Procedure Rule 12.8, a time limit of twenty 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 10 minutes to ensure that all political groups and independent members may have their questions answered.

(a)        Police and Crime Commissioner Election for Essex

Councillor Murray referred to the written reports of the Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder and the Support Services Portfolio Holder regarding the forthcoming election on 15 November 2012.  He asked the Portfolio Holders how he should reply to residents who had informed him that they had received no direct communication from any of the candidates, that they were unaware of the role of the Commissioners, and that in the current difficult economic times there were far better ways to spend the money than on these unnecessary and unwanted elections.

Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder referred to a statement made by the Prime Minister that it might be some time before the benefits of Commissioners were realised.  The Portfolio Holder acknowledged that turnout might not be high and that it was not easy to find out information about candidates.  He pointed out that his Group had worked hard to inform residents about the Conservative candidate but could not of course be expected to provide details of the other candidates.  He also advised that at present residents knew very little about the workings of the Essex Police Authority which was to be replaced by the Commissioner.

(b)       Buckhurst Hill Parking Review

Councillor Spencer asked if the timetable of works for this review including Scotland Road would be available before Christmas 2012. 

Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder stated that he had arranged a further meeting with all the Buckhurst Hill Ward members for the following day.  He expressed the hope that this would be a productive meeting and thanked those members for their input to date.  He said that he could not give a detailed answer to the question until the scope of the scheme had been agreed.  He expressed the hope that the scheme would satisfy the views of local residents and would achieve tangible benefits.

(c)        Local Plan – Issues and Options Consultation

Councillor Wagland referred to the responses to the Issues and Options consultation exercise.  She asked the Planning Portfolio Holder if he shared her view that one of the reasons respondents had expressed concern about the extent of growth being predicated and the extent of Green Belt release which appeared appropriate for inclusion as potential options, was due to the figure work.  She pointed out that the 2011 Census figures which might not have been available when original work was carried out in relation to issues and options indicated a growth rate for this district which appeared to be less than half the growth rate nationally for the relevant period.  She also stated that the Council’s own figures for Housing showed overprovision in relation to the East of England target figures.  She asked the Portfolio Holder if he will take these matters into account in proceeding with proposals.

Councillor Bassett, Planning Portfolio Holder confirmed that close attention would be paid to population numbers.  He stated that this matter had been the subject of one  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

To consider any motions, notice of which has been given under Council Procedure Rule 11.

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

(a)        Stansted Airfield – Proposed Charges

Moved by Councillor Knapman and Seconded by Councillor Waller

“This Council deplores the decision to impose a minimum charge of £2 per car on those who drop off airline passengers within walking distance of the terminal at Stansted Airport, considering this an unfair impost on those who have no reasonable means of travelling to the Airport by public transport.  It finds it totally unacceptable that a discount scheme should apply to residents of Uttlesford and East Hertfordshire Districts but not to residents of the Epping Forest District, many of whom live considerably closer to the airport than most residents of the other two neighbouring districts.

The Council calls on the Leader to make representations to the Stansted Airport authorities on this matter”.

Motion as first moved ADOPTED

            RESOLVED:

            (1) That this Council deplores the decision to impose a minimum charge of £2 per car on those who drop off airline passengers within walking distance of the terminal at Stansted Airport, considering this an unfair impost on those who have no reasonable means of travelling to the Airport by public transport; it finds it totally unacceptable that a discount scheme should apply to residents of Uttlesford and East Hertfordshire Districts but not to residents of the Epping Forest District, many of whom live considerably closer to the airport than most residents of the other two neighbouring districts; and

(2) That the Council calls on the Leader to make representations to the Stansted Airport authorities on this matter.

To answer questions asked after notice in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraph 10.3 of the Council Procedure 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 Chairman of the Council;

(b)               to the Leader of the Council;

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

(d)               to any Member of the Cabinet;.

Council Procedure rule 10.4 provides 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.

(a)        Sainsbury’s Site, Loughton Broadway

Question from Councillor Girling to Councillor Grigg, Asset Management and Economic Development Portfolio Holder

“Upon attending the presentation by Sainsbury’s on Wednesday 3^rd October I was shocked to hear that if the Council cannot agree to remove the current restrictions on Sainsbury’s deliveries to the Debden Store (deliveries amount to two lorries per day), they will have to consider closing the much needed local store.  This store serves local elderly and disabled residents that are unable to travel to Loughton or Epping to complete their weekly shopping.

As a new councillor I was further surprised by the way experienced members responded to Sainsbury’s comments and implied they were “fine” if the store was to close.

Could the Portfolio Holder provide reassurance to my constituents that the Cabinet and Officers are committed to finding suitable solutions to the Sainsbury’s Debden Store delivery issue and will they reassure my constituents that regardless of Sainsbury’s decision there will be a small supermarket on the same site should Sainsbury’s vacate and terminate their lease agreement?”

Reply of Councillor Grigg, Asset Management and Economic Development Portfolio Holder

“Normally there are no restrictions on an operator closing a particular store.

To guard against that happening here, however, there was a section 106 requirement imposed to keep a store for as long as could be agreed. In this case, until 2013.

Meanwhile, the adoption of the development brief envisages and encourages redevelopment of the site, which would continue to provide a store that would help "anchor" trade to it and the wider Broadway Shopping Centre.

Neither Members nor officers can give a guarantee but J Sainsbury still regard their presence at the Broadway as important and the Council is aware that there is also occasional interest in the site expressed by other major supermarket operators.”

Supplementary Question from Councillor Girling to Councillor Grigg

Councillor Girling asked if there were any plans to review the design proposals for the highway improvements in the light of the concerns expressed by Sainsbury’s and B.P. Management. 

Reply of Councillor Grigg

Councillor Grigg stated that as far as she was aware the B.P. Garage would remain and that bearing in mind the Judicial Review being sought by Sainsbury’s it would be better to discuss the position outside of the Council Chamber.

(b)       CCTV Awareness Campaign

Question from Councillor Girling to Councillor Waller, Safer, Greener and Highways Portfolio Holder

“I recently visited the Council’s Safer Communities team and viewed the newly installed Debden CCTV. I am most grateful to members and officers that such a service exists around The Broadway shopping area.

Can I request that the Portfolio Holder works in conjunction with Councillor Grigg and officers in the Safer Communities Team to host an event (perhaps at Epping Forest College) to demonstrate the new CCTV system to the Broadway Traders and sessions at schools in the Loughton Broadway Ward to raise its profile, provide reassurance and act as a deterrent towards future cases of Anti  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Mover: Councillor Grigg, Asset Management and Economic Development Portfolio Holder

Councillor Grigg presented a report on the reasons for incurring additional fees in obtaining outline planning permission.

Report as first moved ADOPTED

            RESOLVED:

            That a supplementary District Development Fund estimate of £44,000 be approved for 2012/13 in order to pay the Council’s 50% share of additional fees incurred in obtaining outline planning permission for a new retail park at Langston Road, Loughton.

To consider the attached report.

Mover:  Councillor Stavrou, Finance and Technology Portfolio Holder

Councillor Stavrou advised that the Local Government Finance Bill had been enacted since this matter had been considered by the Cabinet. 

Report as first moved ADOPTED

            RESOLVED:

            That authority to approve the NNDR1 form be delegated to the Finance and Technology Portfolio Holder in consultation with the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

To consider the attached report.

Mover:  Councillor Bassett, Planning Portfolio Holder

Councillor Bassett submitted a report seeking a supplementary estimate for payments from the Planning Appeals budget.  In response to questions, the Portfolio Holder agreed to submit annual reports on expenditure from the proposed budget and to differentiate in those reports the sums spent on compensation and costs.

Report as first moved ADOPTED

            RESOLVED:

            (1)        That a supplementary District Development Fund estimate of £90,000 be approved for payments made in respect of planning appeals in the  Development Control budget; and

            (2)        That any underspend in 2012/13 be carried forward into successive years until it is spent.

To consider the attached report.

Mover:  Councillor Webster, Leisure and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder

Councillor Webster presented a report proposing a reduction in the management fee of SLM on the basis of the Council providing capital to improve the facilities at Loughton Leisure Centre.

Report as first moved ADOPTED

            RESOLVED:

            That a supplementary capital estimate of £240,000 for the 2012/13 Capital Programme be approved to enable the upgrading of the changing rooms of the Loughton Leisure Centre to be completed by the end of the 2012 calendar year.

(a)   Report of the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee;

(b)   Reports of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (if any); and

(c)   Reports of Constitution & Member Services Standing Panel (attached).

(a)        Report of the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

The Council received a written report from Councillor Morgan, the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

(b)       Reports of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

The Chairman announced that there were no reports to be considered under this item.

(c)        Reports of Overview and Scrutiny Committee Panels

(i)         Report of the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Standing Panel – Staff Appeals Panel – Terms of Reference

Mover:   Councillor Sartin, Chairman of the Panel.

Councillor Sartin presented a report recommending changes to the terms of reference of the Staff Appeals Panel.

Report as first moved ADOPTED

            RESOLVED:

            (1)        That the Terms of Reference of the Staff Appeals Panel be amended so as to delete all appeals by staff except those involving dismissal, including those deriving from selection for redundancy;

            (2)        That this alteration be published in the Constitution; and

            (3)        That any amendments elsewhere in the Constitution to reflect these changes in the Panel’s Terms of Reference be delegated to the Assistant to the Chief Executive.

To consider the attached report.

Mover:  Councillor Smith, Chairman of the Committee

Councillor Smith submitted a report regarding members having a disclosable pecuniary interest in a matter and wishing to make representations before leaving a meeting where the public had the right to speak.  Councillor Smith reported that if the recommendations of the Committee were adopted the Monitoring Officer would submit a report to the next meeting of the Standards Committee suggesting a process for dealing with requests for dispensation bearing in mind the likely timescales involved.  She agreed to publish further details in the Council Bulletin and advised that the process would be explained at a future training session for members.

Report as first moved ADOPTED

            RESOLVED:

            That in relation to members have a disclosable pecuniary interest in a matter and wishing to make representations before leaving a meeting where the public have the right to speak:

            (a)        no action be taken on adopting an appropriate standing order; and

            (b)        members be required to seek a dispensation under Section 33 of the Localism Act 2011.

To consider the attached report.

Mover:  Councillor Smith, Chairman of the Committee

Councillor Smith submitted a report following notification from six Parish Councils that they wished to join the District Council’s Standards Committee.

Report as first moved ADOPTED

            RESOLVED:

            That the Monitoring Officer’s designation as Proper Officer under Chapter 7 of the Localism Act 2011 be extended to cover action in respect of any Parish/Town Council affiliated from time to time to the District Council’s Standards Committee.

To consider the attached report.

Mover:  Councillor Angold-Stephens, Chairman of the Committee

Councillor Angold-Stephens presented a report recommending a statement of principles for the period 31 January 2013 and 31 January 2016.

Report as first moved ADOPTED

            RESOLVED:

            That the Gambling Act 2005 – Statement of Principles attached to the report of the Committee for the three year period from 31 January 2013 -31 January 2016 be adopted.

Recommendation:

That a deputy be appointed to the Council’s representative on the Police and Crime Panel for Essex, Councillor M Sartin for the remainder of the current Council year.

The Police and Crime Panel for Essex has requested each District/Borough/City Council to appoint a deputy for their representative.

The appointment is for the rest of the current Council year.

The Council noted that the Police and Crime Panel for Essex had requested each District/Borough/City Council to appoint a deputy for their representative on the Panel.  The nomination of Councillor Waller having been formally moved by Councillor Whitbread and seconded by Councillor Bassett, it was

            RESOLVED:

            That Council Waller be appointed deputy to the Council’s representative on the Police and Crime Panel for Essex for the remainder of the current Council year.

Recommendation:

To consider a recommendation from the Cabinet to appoint two members to represent the Epping Forest District on the West Essex Wellbeing Joint Committee

(Leader of the Council) Wellbeing is fundamental to the success of the communities of West Essex. The community leaders in West Essex; Epping Forest, Harlow and Uttlesford District Councils, along with the County Council and the West Essex Clinical Commissioning Group, are committed to working in partnership (and with other partners) to develop and implement a Community Wellbeing Strategy for West Essex. 

Whilst local partnership arrangements for wellbeing may be developed within each District Council area, the partners in West Essex propose to create a West Essex Wellbeing Joint Committee to provide a governance structure for partnership working. 

The Joint Committee will consist of representatives from each of the partners and co-optees from the CCG with full voting rights.  The Joint Committee will decide on co-optees/invitees from other partners, but will seek to keep the membership of the Committee to a maximum of 15.  The Joint Committee will determine the chairmanship of the Committee on an annual basis with rotation between the partners. 

It is important to state that this will not be accountable to, nor a part of, the Essex Health and Wellbeing Board but a Joint Committee of the three District Councils. This provides West Essex with a formal locally accountable democratic governance structure with authority to act and the ability to make formal representations to both the Essex Health and Wellbeing Board and to other key players outside of Essex. 

The Joint Committee will additionally fulfil the role of a Local Health and Wellbeing Partnership for the purposes of the Essex Health and Wellbeing Board.  This avoids duplication and provides a direct route to, and from, the Essex Health and Wellbeing Board.

The Cabinet at its meeting on 22 October 2012 decided that the Council should participate in the Joint Committee and asked the Council to appoint two member representatives.

The Leader of the Council reported that whilst local partnership arrangements for Wellbeing could be developed within each District Council area, the partners in West Essex had proposed to create the West Essex Wellbeing Joint Committee to provide a governance structure for partnership working.  He reported that the Joint Committee would consist of representatives from each of the partners and co-optees from the Clinical Commissioning Group with full voting rights.  The Joint Committee would decide on co-optees/invitees from other partners but would seek to keep the membership of the Committee to a maximum of 15.  He reported that the Cabinet at its meeting on 22 October 2012 had decided that this Council should participate in the Joint Committee and had asked the Council to appoint two member representatives.

The nominations of Councillors Boyce and Chambers having been formally moved by Councillor Whitbread and seconded by Councillor Bassett, it was

RESOLVED:

That Councillors Boyce and Chambers be appointed to represent the Epping Forest District on the West Essex Wellbeing and Joint Committee for the remainder of the current Council year.

Recommendation:

To appoint a managing trustee in place of Councillor D Johnson

(Leader of the Council) The Council at its Annual Meeting on 24 May 2011 appointed Councillors D Johnson and P Smith and Mr B Scrutton as managing trustees of the Grange Farm Centre Trust for a four year period commencing 1 June 2011.

The Trust has asked the Council to appoint a trustee in place of Councillor Johnson who has not found it possible to attend meetings. The appointment would be for the balance of the four year period.

The Leader of the Council reported that the Grange Farm Trust had asked the Council to appoint a trustee in place of Councillor Johnson who had not found it possible to attend meetings.  Members noted that the appointment would be for the balance of the four year period which had commenced on 1 June 2011.

The nomination of Councillor McEwen having been formally moved by Councillor Whitbread and seconded by Councillor Waller it was

            RESOLVED:

            That Councillor McEwen be appointed Managing Trustee in place of Councillor Johnson.

(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.

The Chairman informed members that there were no reports to be considered on the business of joint arrangements and external organisations.

Councillor Mohindra encouraged representatives on outside organisations to submit regular reports to the Council on the work of those organisations. Councillor Sartin advised that the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Panel would be reviewing these reporting arrangements during the current municipal year.