Agenda, decisions and minutes

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

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 of Council made a short address to remind everyone present that the meeting would be broadcast live to the internet, and would be capable of repeated viewing, which could infringe their human and data protection rights.

To declare interests in any item on this agenda.

(1)          Pursuant to the Council’s Member Code of Conduct, Cllr N Avey declared an interest in item 9, St John’s Road Development, Epping, by virtue of being the Chairman of Epping Town Council. The Councillor had determined that his interest was not pecuniary and would remain in the meeting for the consideration for the issue.

(2)          Pursuant to the Council’s Member Code of Conduct, Cllr A Grigg declared an interest in item 8, Accommodation Strategy and also on item 9, St John’s Road Development, by virtue of being a North Weald Councillor. The Councillor had determined that her interest was not pecuniary and would remain in the meeting for the consideration for the issue.

(3)          Pursuant to the Council’s Member Code of Conduct, Cllr Jon Whitehouse declared an interest in item 9, St John’s Road Development, Epping, by virtue of being a member of Epping Town Council and a resident of St John’s Road. The Councillor had determined that his interest was not pecuniary and would remain in the meeting for the consideration for the issue.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 8 November 2018.

That the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 8 November 2018, be taken as read and signed by the leader as a correct record.

That the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 8 November 2018, be taken as read and signed by the leader 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.

The Business Support Portfolio Holder, Councillor G Mohindra reported that the Local Government Finance Assessment that was due on 6 December had been delayed and will now go out during the week commencing 17 December 2018.

Councillor Whitbread announced that this was the first meeting of the Cabinet with the new Portfolio Holder responsibilities in place to correspond to the new management structure of the Council.

To receive any questions submitted by members of the public and any requests to address the Cabinet.

(a)        Public Questions

To answer questions asked by members of the public after notice in accordance with the provisions contained within Part 4 of the Constitution (Council Rules, Rule Q3) on any matter in relation to which the Cabinet has powers or duties or which affects the District.

(b)       Requests to Address the Cabinet

Any member of the public or a representative of another organisation may address the Cabinet on any agenda item (except those dealt with in private session as exempt or confidential business) due to be considered at the meeting, in accordance with the provisions contained within Article 7 of the Constitution (The Executive, Paragraphs 27 and 28).

The cabinet noted that no public questions or requests to address the cabinet had been received for consideration at the meeting.

To consider any matters of concern to the Cabinet arising from the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny function and to identify any matters that the Cabinet would like the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to examine as part of its work programme.

It was reported that no meeting had been held since the last meeting of the Cabinet on 8^th November 2018.

To consider the attached report (C-024-2018/19).

The Strategic Director, G Blakemore gave a short presentation to the meeting out lining the proposed future accommodation plans for the Council.

Since the listing of the Civic Offices building by Historic England in late 2017 there had been a number of events and changes that had led to a revisit of the accommodation project. On review there was a new recommendation for Cabinet consideration that acknowledges developments in St. Johns Road, Epping and addresses the continued use of the Civic Offices building for purposes that it was designed for as well as opening up wider services for the community and customers. In addition, research had shown potential for new and established businesses to rent office space supporting economic development and protecting the high street footfall.

The strategic objectives set in 2016 are met by the mixed-use proposition for the Civic Offices building together with the sale of the land to the rear of the site and a new build office in North Weald.

Partners and business have been engaged in informal meetings, land, property values and build costs had been established and a break even financial case was viable on the information to date.

Cabinet were asked to approve the recommendation and the subsequent decisions to enable the next steps to progress with the updated report back by the end of the financial year 2018/19.

Councillor Mohindra asked about the proposed time scale for this project. The Strategic Director said that they were looking, optimistically, at less than three years.

Councillor Lion supported the report saying it was a useful proposal. One question was about travel between the buildings and how this would be managed. The Strategic Director referenced the Travel Plan that had already started before this had come forward. The plan was a living document and would take this new development into consideration. It was still in an information gathering position. It was due to report back on its next phase in March/April 2019.

Councillor Philip asked about the second floor of plans of this building showing the upper part of this chamber as part of the offices; as its listed he assumed that was not so. And he noticed that Homefield House had not been mentioned. The Strategic Director confirmed that the Council Chamber was not part of the plan. As for Homefield House this had not been included as it was seen as a temporary accommodation used to move people into while other work was going on.  Also, there were no definite plans for this as yet.

Councillor S Kane said that he liked the plan a lot as it had a lot going for it as it was cost neutral and would open up a revenue stream for the Council. His only concern was the parking provision for the proposed new tenants. We will have our travel in place and we need to give due consideration to the new tenants. He was told that there would be a travel plan for the building and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

To consider the attached report (C-025-2018/19).

(1)       That the Cabinet noted the failure to conclude the tri-partite agreement between the District and Town Council and their development partner, for the redevelopment of the St John’s Road site in Epping;

(2)       That the Cabinet agreed to proceed with an alternative scheme in accordance with the previously adopted Development and Design Brief in order to seek to deliver the community and economic benefits sought;

(3)       That the Cabinet formally seek to enter into a partnership with Epping Town Council as part of any new scheme to ensure a strategic approach to this important Town Centre site;

(4)       That in the event of a partnering arrangement not being possible with Epping Town Council, the District Council proceeds with the St John’s Road Redevelopment project, on land within its ownership;

(5)       That as a result of the assessment undertaken by independent consultants as required by Sport England, that the St John’s Road site becomes the preferred site for the re-provision of Epping Sports Centre, in a final form to best meet the future Leisure needs of the local community;

(6)       That, subject to recommendation (5) above, the new leisure centre was sought to be delivered through the existing contractual arrangements with the Council’s Leisure Management Partner Places for People;

(7)       That if the Cabinet elects to choose St John’s Road, Epping as its preferred site for a new Leisure Centre to replace Epping Sports Centre, then the North Weald Airfield Masterplan is amended accordingly within the Local Plan;

(8)       That, subject to recommendation (7) above, a full assessment of alternative community provision be undertaken as part of the wider North Weald Masterplan to ensure that the needs of current and future residents were met as part of the implementation of the Local Plan;

(9)       That in order to proceed with the completion of a full development appraisal and bring forward a planning application for the site, appropriate external consultancy expertise is procured, to be funded by the anticipated balance of £150,000 from the £400,000 the Council has previously agreed for the partial demolition of the site; and

(10)    That appropriate governance arrangements are put in place through the establishment of a multi-disciplinary project team and that regular reports were brought forward on progress and key decisions to both the Asset Management and Economic Development Cabinet Committee, the Cabinet and the Council.

The Commercial and Regulatory Services Portfolio Holder presented a report on the St John’s Road site in Epping. She made an amendment to paragraph 15 of report where it should have said 1,050 homes and not 1100 homes in North Weald.

The St John’s Road development was an important strategic project for the Council. A Development and Design Brief for a mixed-use scheme was approved by the Council in September 2012, after a period of stakeholder and public engagement.  After competitive expressions of interest, a development partner was appointed.  Negotiations on a tripartite agreement between the Council, Epping Town Council and the developer failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement and terminated in October 2018.  This report considered future options for the site, to include the relocation of Epping Sports Centre.

An opportunity had also arisen to consider the option to replace Epping Sports Centre on the site by way of a new Leisure Centre to replace the Food Store component.  The St John’s Road site has been assessed as the preferred location in terms of sustainability, participation and viability.  Members were asked to consider if they wished to formally agree to take this vision forward.  On reflection, one of the causes of delay to the original scheme was the inability to achieve agreement with a private sector partner.  The scheme could proceed without the land ownership of the Town Council, but this would not achieve the best form of development and compromise the economic and community benefits.  If a partnership was to be formed, a legal agreement will need to be entered into with the Town Council which satisfies the needs and aspirations of both Councils.

In order to undertake the Development Appraisal, Masterplanning, Programme Management and Technical Assessments in support of any Planning Application, it would be necessary to engage some external specialist consultancy expertise in addition to the input of the in-house project team.  A budget allocation for Fees will be required.  At this stage, soft market testing indicates that demolition costs are likely to be in the region of £225,000-£250,000.  As such, it was proposed that the balance of the current budget allocated at £400,000 is used for the procurement of professional services subject to further reports.

In the long-term the Council would seek to achieve both revenue savings on the Leisure Management Contract, increased asset value, Capital Receipts and revenue returns on the commercial elements of the scheme i.e. house sales, restaurants and cinema. A capital receipt will also be generated by the sale of the current Epping Sports Centre site.  In the longer term the Council would also benefit through the retention of Business Rates.

Councillor Philip was pleased to see the recommendations around the local plan; it made sense to cover the changing circumstances. As the sports centre had moved to Epping, there was a requirement to cover the future needs of the residents of North Weald, making places better for people to live.

Councillor Jon Whitehouse was glad to see this report.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

To consider the attached report (C-022-2018/19).

(1)       That the Garden Town Vision and Design Guide documents appended to the report be agreed as material planning considerations for the preparation of masterplans, pre-application advice, assessing planning applications and any other development management purposes for sites within the Harlow and Gilston Garden Town; and

(2)       That the Service Director Planning in consultation with the Planning Portfolio Holder be authorised to make minor amendments to the Garden Town Vision and Design Guide documents should there be any agreed changes proposed by the respective committees of East Herts, Harlow and Epping Forest District Council’s in order to ensure a consistent document

The Planning Services Portfolio Holder, Councillor Philip, introduced the report on the design guide for the Harlow and Gilston Garden Town. He proposed a slight amendment to recommendation 2; that the first sentence be altered to read: “That the Service Director Planning in consultation with the Planning Portfolio Holder…” this was so that any minor amendments could be made to fall in line with the other authorities that were also considering this document.

Harlow and Gilston was designated as a Garden Town by the Ministry for Homes, Communities and Local Government in January 2017 and would comprise new and existing communities in and around Harlow. East Herts, Epping Forest and Harlow District Councils are working together with Hertfordshire and Essex County Councils to ensure plans for the Garden Town support sustainable living and a healthy economy; provide a good quality of life for existing and future residents; and respond to local landscape and character.

Allies and Morrison were commissioned to support the Councils in developing a vision and design principles for the Harlow and Gilston Garden Town, through developing a strategic narrative, and establishing clear parameters for future masterplanning and consideration of planning applications across the Garden Town that will ensure a consistent high-quality approach to growth.

The vision and design principles have been reviewed and amended through public and developer consultation and the Garden Town Quality Review Panel. It was recommended that the Garden Town Vision and Garden Town Design Guide were agreed as material planning considerations, when assessing site specific masterplans, the emerging Gilston Area Charter, pre-application proposals, planning applications and for any other Development Management purposes. This would ensure that development proposals would achieve garden town ambitions, and that clear parameters were established for future masterplanning and consideration of planning applications across the Garden Town.

Councillor Lion noted that the report mentioned digital capabilities, was there a need for a Digital Masterplan to be put in before building started. Councillor Philip replied that we did have a work stream to look at the digital side, and this will also be looked at through the masterplan, the details would be considered later.

Councillor Chris Pond suggested that electric buses or Trolley buses should be considered for the new town. Also there was mention of the ‘four tracking’ of the West Anglian Mainline and he queried the accuracy of this. Lastly he asked if there had been any concordat with the other two councils on future boundary changes, if not then there should be. Councillor Philip said that they were working on a sustainable transport approach to the plans. As for four tracking, it does say only between London and Broxbourne. As for a concordat; we had an agreement with Harlow several years ago early on in our Local Plan process. Neither of us would look for boundary changes, so the places in Epping Forest, would stay in Epping Forest.

Councillor Grigg asked for any information on the possibility of a sustainable transport bus and the possibility it would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

To consider the attached report (C-026-2018/19).

The Portfolio Holder for Commercial and Regulatory Services, Councillor Grigg, introduced the report seeking additional Capital to undertake necessary alterations and the letting of the Council’s Units at the Landmark Building.

With respect to the redevelopment of the former Sir Winston Churchill PH, now renamed the Landmark Building, in September 2013 the Cabinet approved the Heads of Terms of a Development Agreement for the site.  The developer’s financial appraisal for the development, which was verified by consultants appointed by the Council’s Estates & Valuation Team, assessed that it would not be viable to provide any affordable housing as part of the scheme.  However, the agreement allowed for the Council to retain both the freehold of the site and any income derived from the commercial units provided by the developer on the ground floor.  This was in accordance with the planning permission granted by the Council and was considered to be financially advantageous for the Council.

As handover approached, it was apparent that two significant issues needed to be resolved.  Firstly, the units themselves were only constructed to a basic shell specification and work was required to split the units and provide services.  In addition, the complexity of the legal arrangement which required consent for under lettings and access/servicing and alterations agreements has led to delay and the potential loss of two of the original potential tenants.  In hindsight, the Council should have been more specific in the original development agreement in 2013 to avoid these issues.  This is a key consideration in future negotiations of this type.

To date, the Council has incurred £56,000 of unanticipated specialist legal and construction related costs on the project.  However, in order to take the development through to completion and to be ready for occupation, a further £84,000 capital will be required.  This includes work to undertake the physical separation of the units, installation of additional services and further legal, project management and letting agency fees.  This would also include a contingency for minor works.

Councillor Murray commented that some of this expenditure should have been foreseen; the projects were pushed forward too fast. The Landmark site was disliked by the local community and did not meet local housing needs. Councillor C Whitbread said that they had carried out extensive consultation for a landmark building. Councillor Grigg noted that the developers had named the site, it had received planning permission from this council and as for the aesthetics of the building; beauty was in the eyes of the beholder. As for the income from the building, with all the spaces let it was anticipated that it would achieve about a quarter of a million pounds per annum.

Councillor C Roberts asked about the final occupation of the empty retail units of the Landmark building. Would it not now be prudent to consider a wider market for these units, for perhaps offices or start up businesses as an additional option other than retail outlets. We need to be sure more A3 was what the Broadways  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

To consider the attached report (C-027-2018/19).

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

(2)        That the forecast application of usable capital receipts shown in the report, be approved;

(3)        That borrowing of an estimated £8,227,000, necessary to support the General Fund Capital Programme, be noted;

(4)        That the following amendments to the Capital Programme be recommended to Council to approve:

(a)          supplementary capital estimates of £56,000 for works to investment properties and £23,000 for the Shopping Park letting fees in 2018/19;

(b)          the inclusion of a supplementary capital estimate of £140,000 for works to let the units at the Landmark Building in 2018/19 and £70,000 for the installation of a new sub-station at North Weald Airfield, pending Cabinet report submission and approval;

(c)          additional allocations of £603,000 relating to the updated five-year planned facility management programme in 2021/22;

(d)          the inclusion of Capital allocations of £1,706,000, including recommendation (b), and £323,000 into 2018/19 and 2019/20 respectively as approved by appropriate delegations;

(e)          savings and reductions totalling £53,000 in 2018/19 and £10,000 in 2019/20 for General Fund projects as identified in the report;

(f)           virements relating to the Accommodation Project, pending approval, of £25,000 in 2018/19 and £400,000 in 2019/20 to be taken from on-hold planned maintenance budgets;

(g)          further virements in 2018/19 of £25,000 and £206,000 in 2019/20 within the General Fund and a transfer of a £33,000 potential saving within the car parking schemes;

(h)          additional allocations, savings, reductions and virements in respect of the Council’s housebuilding programme and other HRA capital schemes as identified in the report; and

(i)            carry forwards totalling £2,294,000 and £7,473,000 from 2018/19 to future years for General Fund and HRA capital schemes respectively, as outlined in the report and Resources Implications table.

The Business Support Services Portfolio Holder, Councillor Mohindra introduced the report on the Council’s Capital Programme.

This report set out the Council’s Capital Programme for the five-year period 2018/19 to 2022/23. It included the forecast capital investment in Council owned assets; estimates of capital loans to be made for private housing initiatives; and projected levels of revenue expenditure funded from capital under statute. The Capital Programme has been prepared by updating the programme approved in February 2018, amended for any slippage and re-phasing approved in June 2018, as well as new schemes and allocations proposed by Cabinet since then. The allocations included in 2018/19 and 2019/20 represent proposed sums for capital schemes which the Council was committed to deliver. Allocations given for the years 2020/21 to 2022/23 represent forecast sums as a guide to future capital investment and the schemes to which they relate will require Cabinet approval before going ahead. The projects already approved within the Capital Programme have been reviewed and spending control officers have reassessed estimated final costs and the phasing of expenditure profiles for each scheme as part of the Capital Review. Recommendations have been made to make amendments as appropriate.

Councillor Philip noted the paragraph on the report talking about ICT and the purchasing of laptops; the sums did not seem to add up as it says that 399 out of 408 had been purchased with 10 left to buy. That would make 409 not 408. Councillor Mohindra said that he would look at the figures to make sure we were not over spending.

Councillor Sam Kane queried the Hill House Section 106 contribution, he wondered what the £7000 was for as the 106 money was not ours and was a much larger sum. Councillor Mohindra explained that the £7000 was just an adjustment of a previous version of £100,000 when in fact it was £107,000. This was just the adjustment.

Councillor Murray said that it was good to see grounds maintenance getting new ride-on-mowers. However he was not happy with paragraphs 45 and 46 of the report; he was not happy with the Oakwood Hill application and asked that the Council did not proceed with this. Councillor Whitbread welcomed the comments about grounds maintenance and noted that we needed to have the capital in the budget just in case we proceeded with this.

Councillor Brookes queried the contract with Biffa and the supplying of £500,000 to ensure stability of the waste management contract. This seemed quite a lot.  Councillor Avey noted that he was new to this Portfolio, noted this comment from Councillor Brookes and would get back to her. Councillor Whitbread added that sometime the Council had to meet their obligations when things like this happened; and recycling was an important thing to do.

Decision:

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

(2)        That the forecast application of usable capital receipts shown in the report, be approved;

(3)        That borrowing of an estimated £8,227,000, necessary to support the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

(Business Support Services Portfolio Holder) To consider the minutes of the meeting of the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee held on 15 November 2018 and any recommendations arising therefrom.

That the recommendations of the meeting of the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee held on 15^th November 2018 be agreed. That:

Fees and Charges:

(1)  That the proposed fees and charges for 2019/20, as set out in the appendices to the minutes be approved; and

(2)  That the proposed schedule of Housing Revenue Account fees and charges for 2019/20 be approved.

The Business Support Portfolio Holder presented the minutes from the meeting of the Finance & Performance Management Cabinet Committee, held on 15^th November 2018.

The Cabinet Committee had made recommendations to the Cabinet concerning the proposed fees and charges  for 2019/20.

Decision:

That the recommendations of the meeting of the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee held on 15^th November 2018 be agreed. That:

Fees and Charges:

(1)  That the proposed fees and charges for 2019/20, as set out in the appendices to the minutes be agreed; and

(2)  That the proposed schedule of Housing Revenue Account fees and charges for 2019/20 be agreed.

Reasons for Proposed Decision

As part of the annual budget process changes to fees and charges need to be agreed.

Other options for action

Where the Council has discretion on the level of fees and charges that it sets there are many possible options open to the Council ranging between no increase up to applying quite large increases where justifiable.

To consider the attached report (C-023-2018/19).

That the Cabinet agreed a DDF sum of £15,000 to be allocated to Epping Forest Youth Council, as a project budget to enable the Youth Council to deliver a range of targeted projects for young people in 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22.

The Community and Partnership Services Portfolio Holder, Councillor S Kane introduced the report from the Epping Forest Youth Council.

The Overview and Scrutiny Task and Finish Review of Youth Engagement in 2015/16 recommended that the Youth Council be granted £8,000 DDF project funding in 2016/17 to provide targeted project work for young people in the district and that the opportunity to secure DDF funding would be available to the Youth Council in subsequent years.

In 2017/18 a further sum of £8,000 was granted for Youth Council project work, which enabled the provision of £5000 for a Street Survival project and £3000 funding to deliver Year 3 of the MiLife emotional health and wellbeing project in local schools.

The Youth Council would like to be able to provide these valuable programmes of work on an ongoing basis for children and young people, as continuity was needed across new cohorts of pupils in the district.

The Youth Council therefore sought Cabinet approval to grant DDF funding of £15,000, to enable £5,000 to be available for this work in each of the following years, 2019/20, 2020/21 and 21/22.  

Decision:

That the Cabinet agreed a DDF sum of £15,000 to be allocated to Epping Forest Youth Council, as a project budget to enable the Youth Council to deliver a range of targeted projects for young people in 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22.

Reasons for Decision:

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee Task and Finish Review of Youth Engagement in 2015/16, recommended that the Youth Council be able to bid for project funding each year, in order for them to develop and deliver activities and projects for young people. It is now requested that approval was given for DDF funding to be available for a three year period in order for the Youth Council to plan projects over a longer period.

Other Options for Action:

To not provide any funding for Epping Forest Youth Council project work.

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 requires 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.

Local Plan Cabinet Committee Minutes

Decision:

That the recommendation of the meeting of the Local Plan Cabinet Committee held on 22^nd November 2018 be agreed. The Cabinet noted that the decision on the item on the Epping Forest District Local Plan Update implied the moving of money around from DDF to the CSB.

The Cabinet considered and agreed the minutes from the Local Plan Cabinet Committee meeting held on 22^nd November 2018.

The Cabinet noted and endorsed the decision on minute item 7, Epping Forest District Local Plan Update, noting that the decision implied moving money around from DDF to CSB.