Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 8 November 2010.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 November 2010 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

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

(a)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor J M Whitehouse declared a personal interest in agenda item 4, Asset Management Coordination Group minutes 24 January 2010 and 7 March 2011, by virtue of living in close proximity to the St John’s Road development site. The Councillor had determined that his interest was not prejudicial and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the report.

(Director of Corporate Support Services) To consider the minutes from the meeting of the Asset Management Coordination Group held on 20 January 2011, and any recommendations therein.

The Cabinet Committee considered the notes of the Asset Management Coordination Group held on 20 January 2011. They considered the information regarding the sites owned by the District Council and noted the progress.

            RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Asset Management Co-ordination Group held on 20 January 2011 be noted.

The Cabinet Committee considered the notes of the Asset Management Coordination Group held on 7 March 2011. They considered the information regarding the sites owned by the District Council and noted the progress.

Councillor Stallan enquired about the new sites identified in item 4, New Depot at North Weald, and asked for the word ‘temporary’ be used in future discussions. John Gilbert, Director of Environment and Street Scene, explained that alternative sites had been identified owing to some ecological problems currently being investigated. Mr Gilbert undertook to provide further details in private session. It was noted that any progress made regarding this site would be reported back to the Cabinet Committee in due course.

Councillor Mrs Grigg asked if further location details could be given regarding these sites, particularly the alternative site’s proximity to the control tower. Mr Gilbert was unable to give such details as the site was currently only a potential option and yet to be formalised.

Councillor J M Whitehouse expressed his concern with regard to the progress of St John’s Road/Epping Depot Site, considering the absence of the Economic Development Officer and unresolved highway issues. He was informed that talks were taking place with Harlow Council for short term help with respect to Economic Development issues.  Mr Macnab advised that negotiations were currently ongoing regarding the highways issues as the previous studies validity had been questioned. Mr Macnab shared the Councillor’s concerns about the protracted timescales and to this end, had requested a detailed report be given to Management Board. He assured Members that the information received would be circulated via the Council Bulletin, but could not envisage that the Council would be in a position to formally consult before the Local Council Elections in May.

In response to a question by Councillor Mrs Wagland, Mr Macnab confirmed that  the District Council’s Estate Management Officers were present at all meetings of the Working Group with County Officers and their advisors, in order to address valuation and estate issues alongside the development of the planning brief.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Asset Management Co-ordination Group held on 7 March 2011 be noted.

(Director of Environment and Street Scene) To consider the attached report.

In August 2010 Halcrow had been appointed to undertake an Aviation Intensification Study of North Weald Airfield in order to examine the potential for an intensification of flying activity. Three representatives from Halcrow attended the meeting and gave a presentation to the Cabinet Committee on their final report.

Since presenting the interim report at the meeting on 8 November 2010 (minute 30 refers), Halcrow had consulted with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on Aerodrome Standards and Airspace Policy, and had undertaken discussions with various operators and fixed base operators (FBO). This had enabled the identification of 3 development options, as well as estimates of costs and revenues, business planning, and financial projections.

Currently, aviation operations at the airfield functioned at a loss to the Council of approximately £300K per annum. There were approximately 20,000+ aircraft movements recorded per year, which was mostly private, recreational, and heritage aircraft. The infrastructure and operations met CAA guidelines for unlicensed aerodromes, though perimeter security and pavement maintenance needed to be addressed.

Halcrow had identified three potential development options for the North Weald Airfield:

(1)        Take no action

To continue current arrangements with no significant capital investment, risking pavement deterioration limiting aircraft operation and not reducing the current level of financial subsidy.

(2)        Organic growth

The Airfield remaining unlicensed, but active pursuit of more tenants and traffic resulting in modest growth and marginal improvement in the level of financial subsidy.

(3)        Active development

Licensing of the Aerodrome in order to target business aviation operators, requiring an investment in infrastructure. Different management options were proposed, either retaining EFDC as manager and operator, or leasing the field to an FBO thus sharing both risks and benefits, and with the potential to recover the current financial subsidy.

It was noted that the business aviation market had taken a recent downturn, but was now growing again. The forecasts for growth that Halcrow provided took this trend into account, and were therefore conservative estimates. It was also noted that active development scenarios would require considerable capital costs in order to provide a minimum 1400m of updated and satisfactory runway (the current runway stood at 1900m), pavement strengthening, and runway lighting.

The Chairman thanked the representatives from Halcrow for their presentation, and the meeting was then opened for Members’ questions.

Councillor Mrs Sartin asked the representatives from Halcrow if any discussion had taken place regarding the effects of expanding the current airfield site on airspace given the Airfield’s proximity to Stansted Airport. Mr Kaberry responded that this had been discussed with the CAA, and though they were not permitted to refuse an increase in aircraft activity, the CAA were not keen on encouraging further crowding of the already congested airspace.

Councillor Mrs Grigg enquired as to the possibility of an option between organic growth and active development, but was told that the distinction between licensed and unlicensed activity rendered this unfeasible. Additionally, as other alternative operating airfields already had Instrument Landing Systems, it was virtually a prerequisite to follow suit  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with paragraphs 6 and 25 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 business for consideration by the Cabinet Committee.