Cabinet - Monday 21 July 2025, 7:00pm - Epping Forest District Council webcasts

Cabinet
Monday, 21st July 2025 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Paul Keska
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
  1. Vivienne Messenger
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  2. Cllr Ken Williamson
  3. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  4. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  5. Cllr Ken Williamson
  6. Cllr Kaz Rizvi
  7. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Roger Baldwin
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Ken Williamson
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  3. Cllr Martin Morris
  4. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  5. Cllr Ken Williamson
  6. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Ken Williamson
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  3. Cllr Martin Morris
  4. Cllr Ken Williamson
  5. Nigel Richardson
  6. Tim Parton
  7. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  8. Cllr Howard Kauffman
  9. Cllr Ken Williamson
  10. Cllr Howard Kauffman
  11. Cllr Ken Williamson
  12. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  13. Public Speaker
  14. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  15. Cllr Ken Williamson
  16. Tim Parton
  17. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  18. Tim Parton
  19. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  20. Nigel Richardson
  21. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  22. Cllr Will Kauffman
  23. Cllr Ken Williamson
  24. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Raymond Balcombe
  2. Cllr Michael Owen
  3. Cllr Raymond Balcombe
  4. James Warwick
  5. Cllr Raymond Balcombe
  6. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  7. Cllr Raymond Balcombe
  8. Andrew Small
  9. Cllr Raymond Balcombe
  10. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  11. Cllr Raymond Balcombe
  12. Cllr Chris Pond
  13. Cllr Raymond Balcombe
  14. James Warwick
  15. Cllr Raymond Balcombe
  16. Cllr Stephen Murray
  17. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  18. Cllr Raymond Balcombe
  19. James Warwick
  20. Cllr Raymond Balcombe
  21. Cllr Tim Matthews
  22. Cllr Raymond Balcombe
  23. Cllr Roger Baldwin
  24. Cllr Raymond Balcombe
  25. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  2. Owen Sparks
  3. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  4. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  5. Cllr Martin Morris
  6. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  7. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  8. Owen Sparks
  9. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  10. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  11. Cllr Martin Morris
  12. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  13. Owen Sparks
  14. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  15. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  16. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Janet Whitehouse
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  3. Andrew Small
  4. Cllr Janet Whitehouse
  5. Andrew Small
  6. Cllr Janet Whitehouse
  7. Andrew Small
  8. Cllr Janet Whitehouse
  9. Andrew Small
  10. Cllr Janet Whitehouse
  11. Andrew Small
  12. Cllr Janet Whitehouse
  13. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  14. Andrew Small
  15. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  16. Cllr Stephen Murray
  17. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  18. Andrew Small
  19. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  20. Cllr Howard Kauffman
  21. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  22. Cllr Will Kauffman
  23. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  24. Cllr Will Kauffman
  25. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  26. Andrew Small
  27. Cllr Rose Brookes
  28. Andrew Small
  29. Cllr Rose Brookes
  30. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Cllr Paul Keska - 0:00:00
A minute, yeah?
Got a white.
Change his hand.
One minute.
I think we can get cracking now.
So take two.
Good evening, members.

1 Webcasting Introduction

I'd like to make everyone to remind everyone that this meeting will be filmed live or recorded
and uploaded to the internet and will be capable of repeated viewing.
Therefore, by participating in this meeting, you are consenting to being filmed and to
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:00:57
possible use of those images and sound recordings. If any public speakers on MS Teams do not
wish to have their image captured, they should turn off their video setting throughout the
meeting and set to audio only. Members, I don't need to remind you again, but when you're
please turn your microphones on and when you're finished turn them off. Item 2

2 Apologies for Absence

Vivienne Messenger - 0:01:33
apologies for absence. I've got councillor Kesker. Thank you. On declarations of

3 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:01:37
interest are there any members with a declaration of interest? No apart from
myself in that case on item 10 on the food and garden waste collections there
is a mention of Essex County Council on there and conversations and negotiations in that
situation. Therefore, I will declare and withdraw from the meeting on that particular item.

4 Minutes

Minutes of the last meeting. Can I take those as being agreed? Thank you. And any reports

6 Public Questions and Requests to Address the Cabinet

of portfolio holders. Before we get started I'll make a couple of quick reports. The first one you
will see a slightly different composition of the cabinet in future. Nigel Bedford still with us and
still working hard for his residence in Northfield but has recently moved and will be still playing
act and active part but will no longer be in the cabinet because of the work that that requires
in itself. I have made the decision to reduce the cabinet by one in that case
and to dissolve the portfolio currently held by Councillor Smooty Patel and to
share that amongst other cabinet members and I will make members aware of the
makeup of that position later on and Councillor Smooty Patel will be taking
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:03:07
on the housing portfolio holder role in future. So from from the point of view of
the council the cabinet will be smaller and I thought that's a very important
thing to do at a time when we're asking officers to find further savings as part
of this year's budget round so the cabinet will now be one person less as
we move forward. Members I can't start this evening without mentioning the
events over recent weeks in Epping which saddened me greatly as a resident of the
I would first of all like to put on record my thanks to the police and emergency services
who have worked tirelessly during this time, also to our own officers who have played an
active role in everything that has been going on, to the fact that Andrew and myself were
speaking on a regular basis, even late into the evening, about the issues that we are
facing.
I think we all agree that residents have a right to peacefully protest and I have sympathy
with what they're protesting about.
However, the violent extremes that we have seen are hugely disappointing and do not help
to achieve what those demonstrating peacefully are trying to achieve.
In fact, it probably puts us in a worse position than what we were before.
They are not doing eping any favours.
Indeed, it saddens me greatly to see that type of behaviour.
It's a real shame for those people who are doing what they feel is right peacefully and
respectfully.
I would plea, make a plea that people help us to return to calm and civility as quickly
as possible.
This council has always said that the Bell Hotel was not suitable for its present uses.
We set it back in 2020 when it was being used for families and we certainly reiterated our
concerns in April this year when it was stepped up as an asylum seeker refuge again, but for
single males.
It is completely inappropriate for that usage.
Unfortunately, we've had the events of the past two weeks which have made matters worse,
and of course one of the places that I always come from is community cohesion.
That's first and foremost in my mind when we deal with this issue.
I call again for everybody to be calm and support their local community.
Over the past weeks we have been working with the local MPs and we have been working with
a variety of partners to try and achieve what we are seeking to do, including the Home Office
officials and we continue to do so. We will work tirelessly to try and get the best outcome for
the people of Epping. That will not be achieved and is not being achieved by those people who
feel violence is the way forward. Members, I will make a fuller statement shortly which will be
released to the press in the coming days. My thoughts are with those who have been affected
by this my faults are with my town that I've lived in for 60 years and I trust and hope
that we can return to calm and sensible behaviour as quickly as possible. Thank you. Members
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:07:08
any other reports to give? Councillor Williamson. Thank you leader it's just an update on the
south of Epping, master plan and the petition.
We did receive the petition a couple of weeks ago.
It is with Democratic Services at the moment.
I had a quick look through.
I'd just like to make a few comments, if I may.
It was noted that there were 2 ,175 signatures.
I had a quick look through, and I can only see something
like 420 or thereabouts from within the district.
But one anomaly is that the very first item
is the Epping Society.
So they're down as one person in this petition.
I can't see any of the members of the Epping
Society that I'm aware of actually have signed it
in their individual role.
So it's more than 420 is probably what,
if it's unanimous through the Epping Society,
I don't know what their membership is.
The, I think we must make it clear that normally it's a
petition against a planning application.
There is no planning application at the moment.
So we can only take it into account in the master plan
work that's going on.
I'd like to point out that this is not part of Epping Forest.
It's not buffer lands and it's not green belt.
And there was a previous reduction from 950 homes to 450.
The three points that raised in the petition, I couldn't obviously respond because I didn't
know what the petition was on the evening I received it.
It was the first time I'd actually seen it.
Item one was respect the views of your constituents, which we always try and do.
I very much look forward to going to Hawaii and Brisbane, who also signed this petition.
Number two is abandon the current plan.
Well, that cannot be done.
I've explained countless times that this is an allocated site within local plan.
If we don't do this, then we lose the right to actually decide where development goes.
I'm more than happy to work with the residents,
the Epping Society, anybody in the district,
to make sure that what is built there
is the right thing for the place.
But we cannot abandon the site.
And the third one was, I thought, strange wording,
knowledge that your first duty is the residence of Epping
and represent their views.
As the portfolio holder,
I believe I represent all residents
in Epping Forest District, not just Epping.
There are residents in Buckhurst Hill,
Louton, Nongar, Abridge, Thadenbois,
that we represent their views as well.
That's pretty much where we are.
I previously, on a previous occasion,
said that the principle of development
was absolutely established.
I got pinnered in the press.
So I'll be more measured in what I say.
basically the principle of development on this site is absolutely established.
Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Holy -Whitbread.
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:10:28
Thank you Chairman. I just wanted to note and it will probably be or hopefully be discussed more fully at full Council
but just wanted to note the sad passing of Wynn Marshall who was the former
Chairman of the Tenants and Leaseholders Association. Wynn was a really great guy
who I had opportunity to work alongside
as the cabinet member for housing for several years
and also on the community's select committee before that.
So I just want to send my best wishes
to his family and friends.
He was a real servant to the community locally,
particularly in Loudoun, where he was from,
but also a great friend to this council
and actually the cause of social housing.
So I just wanted to pass on my best wishes,
and hopefully we'll have a chance to do that
more fully at full council. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, castor Isfri.
Thank you, leader.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:11:10
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:11:14
It was just to bring to the attention of members that we, owing to the events of last week,
we had the one -year anniversary celebration planned for the community lottery.
Cllr Kaz Rizvi - 0:11:23
And because of the events last Thursday 17th, we had to postpone that and that will be rescheduled
hopefully to a date coming up in autumn.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:11:38
Public questions or requests to address the cabinet?
There are none, leader.
Thank you.
Report of overview and scrutiny.
Councillor Baldwin.

7 Overview and Scrutiny

Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Roger Baldwin - 0:11:52
So I'm delighted to continue in my role as the Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
We held our first meeting on the 10th of June when the leader set out the council's priorities
for the year and we agreed an interesting work programme which contained the scrutiny
of a range of issues and policies and some external parties including TFL will be invited
to attend.
We consider the separation of garden and food waste,
and conserves were raised at the meeting with further details being referred to the Place Committee on the 1st of July.
That item, of course, is on the agenda tonight, and I believe the report has now been shaped by the discussion that we had in ONS.
I would like to thank officers James Warwick and Owen Sparks for answering in a very detailed
manner questions posed by Councillor Mandy George.
They gave very detailed and full written responses via email.
Thank you for that.
Also, due to the timing of the last meeting with ONS, we did not have any financial reports
to consider.
These are on the agenda this evening.
But there will be an opportunity for scrutiny at our next meeting
on the 5th of August when we will be scrutinising the
quarter four budget monitoring report, the provisional one for
2024 -2025, as this is an important function of the committee.
Lastly, we do consider cabinet business at every meeting and LGR
and the budget are areas that will be of interest in the coming
months.
I'm confident that we can provide an effective scrutiny this year
and I welcome any suggestions from cabinet for inclusion
in the scrutiny process.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Baldwin.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:13:48
Any comments on Councillor Baldwin's report?
Nope. Okay.
Thank you very much.
Item eight, Waltham Abbey North
strategic master plan framework.

8 Waltham Abbey North Strategic Masterplan Framework (SMF)

Councillor Williamson.
Thank you, Nida.
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:14:03
This report is to bring the draught Waltham Abbey
North strategic master plan framework
to cabinet to go out to formal consultation. The development, it responds to the adopted
Epping Forest District Local Plan Allocation Policy P3 Waltham Abbey. The master plan area
forms one of the allocated strategic master plan sites where the need for an SMF is identified.
Following the requirements in policy SP2 placemaking and P3 Waltham Abbey, the strategic master
plan has been developed for the allocated strategic area.
The master plan is allocated for a minimum of 740 homes,
a local centre, including retail, community facilities,
and appropriate provision of green and blue infrastructure.
A saying was not deemed required for this site
due to its proximity to the Lee Valley Regional Park.
The framework has been subject to informal public
consultation spanning between 2021,
where the local community and town council were consulted
to the summer of 2024,
when the SMF was presented a quality review panel.
The following informal consultation and QRP reviews,
this SMF has been updated to reflect those comments
as appropriate.
It's been developed collaboratively
and has been reviewed by the local planning authority,
Essex officers as part of the planning
performance agreement process.
The master plan has also been reviewed
by the council's quality review panel two times
in 2021 and 2024.
A briefing was organised for Waltham Abbey councillors.
I accept that this was a relatively short notice
and I'm grateful to those members who did take part.
Therefore, I recommend that the Waltham Abbey
North Strategic Master Plan Framework be approved
for formal conference consultation
that will run for eight weeks between the end of July
and the end of September.
Thank you.
Members, any questions?
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:16:06
Flip, Castle Morris.
Yeah, hi, thanks very much.
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:16:12
I did attend the briefing
and I did make this point at the briefing,
but having reviewed the master plan overall,
there are gonna be two exits from the site,
one onto the Crooked Mile and one onto Parklands.
In the original local plan, it was identified that there would be an improvement of the junction with Galley Hill Road and Parklands,
which is heavily used by businesses in the Galley Hill Road, and it has heavy traffic, lots of HGVs and big vehicles,
and that junction is desperately in need of improvement.
I notice it's not included in the master plan now because Essex Highways didn't approve the use of Galley Hill Road,
but I would like to see at least some infrastructure money
put aside for improving that junction,
which is really desperately needed,
partly just to cope with the sheer volume of traffic
that goes in and out of there,
and also to make that junction safer.
Similar comment goes to the junction with Crooked Mile,
but it's the junction with Galley Hill Road
that we've had the most experience with.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you very much, Councillor Morris.
Councillor Williamson.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:17:26
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:17:28
Thank you first for attending the meeting and bringing the points up. That junction,
that's I think hopefully going to be covered under the monies we raise under the next item.
So I think it's a very timely interjection. Thank you very much.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:17:49
Thank you. Any other questions? Nope. Therefore I'm going to ask members to agree the recommendations
that set out. Thank you. Okay we now move on to item nine the community infrastructure

9 Community Infrastructure Plan Draft Charging Schedule for Consultation

plan draught. Councillor Williamson. Thank you leader. This report is before cabinet to start
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:18:10
the consultation process as outlined in the report. This is an extremely complex report
with the attached papers running to 425 pages. I'm happy to answer questions tonight on the
principles involved will suggest that any detailed questions be dealt with during the
consultation period. The consultation is an important step to delivering infrastructure
improvements as we've just heard throughout the district. Section 106 agreements will
still be included for improvements that are site specific, so this sits on top of our
current arrangement. Thank you.
Thank you. Members.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:18:47
Caster -Wars.
Sorry.
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:18:50
Yeah, I just had one point.
I did briefly read through all the reports that were included in this.
I had a couple of questions.
Who's expected to respond to the public consultation?
It wasn't clear to me.
And I did look at the viability assessment.
It runs to 300 pages.
Is there going to be a summary produced,
which would probably help with getting more responses?
to a document of that size.
Thank you.
Mr Gav
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:19:22
I think if I may, I defer to the experts on that particular point.
Nigel Richardson - 0:19:28
We're fortunate to have Tim Parton from DAC Planning.
So if you don't mind, I'll pass this over to him.
Please do.
Hi, thank you.
Tim Parton - 0:19:36
So in terms of who will respond, well, it's a public consultation, so anyone can respond
to it.
From previous experience doing CIL consultations in other areas, it does tend to be the development
industry because it's then that will be affected most by this change.
But anyone is welcome to make comments through the consultation.
In terms of a summary of the viability assessment, hopefully you have seen in the appendices
to the report that there is a booklet explaining what CIL is and the evidence -based material.
So there's a brief summary of the viability assessment there.
Then also one of the appendices was the charging schedule and that really is the key conclusion
coming out of that viability work.
The viability assessment does a lot of reviewing of the area, identifying costs and its conclusion
is that there can be certain rates applied to new development in the area and then that
charging schedule is what's being consulted on.
So really the viability assessment is a background document.
They are often quite complex and difficult to deal with.
So that's why we have got the consultation booklet.
There's a two -page summary leaflet as well.
And there's a consultation questionnaire to help people respond to the consultation.
So hopefully that does help people respond.
It's certainly our intention to make it as easy as possible for people.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Kaufman.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:21:08
Thank you, Chairman, and apologies for lateness.
The day job sometimes still gets in the way.
Cllr Howard Kauffman - 0:21:14
I have had a look at this.
This is such a complex document, and we are at a time in the
market where very few schemes are actually coming forward,
and very few schemes are actually viable.
And with Mr. Richardson here, I wonder if there's anything we
can do to focus on the key providers of schemes
in the district and ask them to come in for a session
on this, it's so complicated.
We won't get responses from members of the public
and everyone's running around like idiots these days,
but with a calm head, some of the delivery partners
should look at this and see if there are any particular
health warnings that are specific to Epping Forest
and our delivery.
Can we do something to facilitate that please?
Thank you, Councillor Kaufman.
and I'll go to Councillor Williamson first
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:21:59
to see who he wants to pass this to.
Yeah, I think that's something we will try and look at.
I can't promise that it can be fitted in,
but I would have thought they would all be participating
in this anyway, the local developers.
It's something that's probably key
to everything they're doing,
but it does answer the point that was raised
about this disjunction that will not have any,
needs work done to it, and will not have anything done
under the site that it's adjacent to, but not part of.
Councillor Caffrey.
Councillor Caffrey.
Thank you for letting me come back.
Cllr Howard Kauffman - 0:22:34
So what is the duration of this consultation, and how can we see
that we do get positive feedback?
I'm involved in one in my day job for the London Bar of
Hackney, and only two people have bothered to respond because
it's too complicated, and everyone's rushing around,
they're too busy, and we haven't had any positive feedback,
and we want it.
So it would be good to have a positive, not that just no one bothered.
Can we be proactive?
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:23:02
It runs for eight weeks.
I read out the dates, I think to the end of September it runs.
So yeah, we'll try and be proactive.
We'll see what we can put in place to make that work.
But you can't force people to do this, but I accept your point.
It's worth having a look at.
Thank you.
Councillor Williams, if I may just interject,
I'll come to Councillor Whitehouse in a moment.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:23:24
If I may just interject, I think it's really important
that we do everything we can as Councillor McAlthern said,
to engage with our partner developers
or not developers across who deliver in this area
because it's gonna be vital to us,
especially at this difficult time
in the construction industry.
So anything we can do to make sure
we publicise this fully will be helpful.
Councillor Whitehouse.
Thanks, Chairman.
Yeah, perhaps as an Epping Council
and as the first Council meeting since recent events,
I would just like to say how horrified I've been
Public Speaker - 0:24:00
by recent events in Epping
and people's willingness to exploit those events
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:24:07
for violence and their own ends,
but there'll be more to say about that
at the Council meeting on Thursday.
On this item, I've been trying to work out what, if anything, this means for
residential extensions, NANEXs and small -scale developments. And I read the
bit about them not being exempt in one part of it, but about all other development
being nought pounds. So do I understand this correctly, that although technically
not exempt, they won't be levied, they won't be levied, and there's been some fairly well
publicised examples I think in Surrey of where people who could have not been charged a levy
were charged a levy because they didn't fill in the correct form or failed to fill in the
correct form, one or the other. And could you just clarify what the situation would
be in upping for it if this is adopted and in particular can we make steps to make sure
that inadvertent form -filling mistakes don't result in massive bills?
Thank you. Councillor Williamson.
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:25:19
Thank you. I think I will pass to the experts on this. There is a minimum size in the document
that still doesn't apply to. On the other bit, I can't give an undertaking that somebody
feels in a wrong form and nothing happens.
But I take your point, I think.
But let's see what the answer is on the size thing first.
It may answer the majority of your point.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Tim Parton - 0:25:50
Yeah, it's 100 square metres.
And then there are opportunities to make
certain types of development exempt, and you
can make a decision on that as a charging
authority, which the council would be.
In terms of form filling, there are situations where if you don't put in the relevant notices,
then you can be asked to pay the levy earlier than you would usually have to.
So we're including instalments policy within the charging schedule to spread the payments
across the life of a development.
But if you fail to provide the correct forms, then the charging authority could charge all
that, the seal requirement up front. But there is the chance, you know, as the charging authority
to manage that in a different way. So you can consider that as you go forward.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:26:45
So just to be clear, does the 100 square metre exemption, is that automatic or do people
need to sort of declare that their development is less than 100 metres in order to escape
from the seal? Yeah, it forms part of the planning application
Tim Parton - 0:26:57
process so once you get an approval for development you would then submit your forms in relation
to the levy as well. So it becomes part of the process and we'll work with the council
to make sure that all the information is really clear on the website and people are informed
about it. And there's still a fair way to go. We would go through this consultation
and then the charging schedule would get examined so we're not expecting it to become adopted
until later in the new year.
So there's a good period of time to make people aware that this is coming.
And as part of our work with other authorities, we do go through a process of speaking to
the development industry in the area as well, so that they fully understand when it's going
to be coming in.
Because it does affect planning applications that are in the process around the time it
gets adopted, so developers may want to put in their application earlier or later, depending
on when the council will adopt the seal.
Thank you.
Mr Richardson.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:27:58
Sorry, Councillor Williamson.
Nigel Richardson - 0:28:01
I think the consultation period is actually six weeks rather than eight.
And the other thing about the seal viability assessment, if you look at page 20 in the
various sources including questionnaire surveys with local, regional and national housing
developers and registered providers operating within the area. So some of this work has
already been done. So we're at the stage now where we're ready to go to consultation.
Thank you. Any other questions?
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:28:46
Councillor Will Calhoun. Thank you, Chair. Can I get technical for
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:28:54
a second on the seal point, because have they changed the legislation yet? It relates purely
to floor space created. Is there any way that we can provide a provision within – I think
it's pretty clutching at straws because of the nature of the statutory instrument.
But the solar farms is what's got my attention, whether or not there's a way
that we can build into the seal charging schedule some way of tackling that
because of course we're looking almost in certain cases at 100 % site coverage.
But I gather of course there's not floor space that people are going into on a
regular basis. I'd like to make sure that when those schemes do come in that
we're not missing out on any opportunity that we can take.
Councillor Williamson.
Thank you, Lida.
Thank you for the question.
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:29:43
It is something we have in mind.
We have thought about it.
It is an incredibly technical piece of work,
that particular one,
but it is something that we hope to look in detail
during the consultation period.
Thank you.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:30:00
Members, no other questions.
Can we agree to recommendations
so we can go out to consultation on this one. Thank you. Okay. I will now depart from the
chair and hand over to Councillor Balcombe to take item 10 on food and garden waste collection.

10 Food and Garden Waste Collection Service Proposals

Cllr Raymond Balcombe - 0:30:33
Okay, item 10. Food and Garden Waste Collection Service proposals. The documents you have
all had and read. I will just go through a few points on it first of all. As you are
aware Epping Forest District Council is planning to separate its food and garden waste collection
service starting April 26, aligning with other Essex councils and current legislation. This
change aims to reduce costs and improve service efficiency while introducing a subscription
charge for garden waste to maintain financial sustainability. EFDC will collect food waste
weekly and garden waste fortnightly beginning April 26. Depending on the availability of
the food waste vehicles, this aligns with the legislation requiring weekly food waste
collection. Officers will continue to negotiate with the Essex County Council to secure funding
for new food waste collection service to support its implementation. An annual subscription
fee for garden waste collection will be proposed during the 26 -27 budget process recommending
a £60 for fortnightly collections, ensuring the service cost is neutral and financially
sustainable. The current combined food and garden waste
service costing approximately 2 .1 million annually will be replaced by a separate collection
estimated at 1 .9 million per year, saving 200 ,000 pounds annually. The garden waste
service will pause for two weeks in December and January to optimise resources use and
and possibly support community initiatives
like the Christmas tree collection.
This has been discussed at both overviews
and overview and scrutiny
and place scrutiny committee meetings
and at executive briefing.
As I say, the paperwork is in front of you.
James Warwick is here with me to help answer some questions.
So members.
Councillor Allian.
Yeah, so here's where I'm at with this one.
Cllr Michael Owen - 0:33:07
I do have concerns that when we start charging residents that it encourages bad behaviour,
primarily like next to the forest sites that people might just start dumping garden waste
into the forest in this type of activity.
I know we don't have to collect people's garden waste, but we currently do and I also have
an issue with us charging for services that are currently given as a way to raise revenue
I think we should have raised council tax over the years to battle this
type of issue that we have got now. They are my comments on the matter.
Cllr Raymond Balcombe - 0:33:42
I will hand that one over to James in a second. First of all, I don't
actually see it being any more of a problem than it is now. We are
getting rubbish done now. Why should it make it any different? James,
would you like to follow that up on the second point?
James Warwick - 0:34:00
In terms of an increase in fly tipping,
as previously said over in scrutiny and place committee,
where this has been introduced
in the majority of the country,
there hasn't led to an increase in bad behaviour
and people dumping their garden waste. EFDC has previously charged for garden waste. It
is a means of protecting frontline services and balancing the budgets.
Cllr Raymond Balcombe - 0:34:41
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:34:44
Councillor Whiskin. Thank you, Chairman. I don't think we should
people, this is simply a cost saving exercise.
A question you did say it was cost neutral on the,
the paperwork alludes to a surplus generated
of 259 ,000 pounds from the green waste.
So I would say that people see this as a council tax rise,
as simple as that.
I do have concerns about multi -tenanted properties
where has there been adequate consultation to make sure that they can accommodate the
changes coming forward? Small examples I've come across would seem to counter that, that
they will have difficulty in maintaining the numbers of bins, et cetera.
The other point I wanted to make is that going down the route of LGR, and it's quite likely,
given the recent paperwork that will be merged with the middle tier of Essex.
It's a bit Harlow, Chelmsford, Maldon, Brentwood, ourselves. I have concerns that
from a holistic view are we spending money capital -wise equipping vehicles
down the road when we don't really know what the end result will be with other
other councils which have currently got completely different systems. The other four authorities
have different bins, they have bags, they have sacks. The question is, would it be better
not waiting until we put everything in the right alignment? Yes, I know it would mean
another 200 grand less for this council, but overall would that perhaps not be a better
way to consider it? Thank you.
We're taking the last point first.
Cllr Raymond Balcombe - 0:36:29
I think Mr. Small wants to come in on that one,
first of all.
Just thank you, Councillor Belkin.
Andrew Small - 0:36:39
In general point about local government reorganisation
and how waste tends to go through that process.
I think one of the biggest services to reorganise
on local government reorganisation is probably waste.
You'll find there's a hybrid structure for waste delivery
across the county, the point you've made I think really, a lot of it will be under contract
and probably under contract for a very long time.
So I think for those organisations that have been through local government reorganisation
in the past, it takes a very long time to harmonise waste collection arrangements.
So even if we invested in changes now, we'd still probably see the benefit of all of that
before the wider geography was able to harmonise
onto a single method of collection,
which no doubt it would choose to do so in due course.
But as I say, it'll take many years to get to that point.
I think most authorities are collection food
is separately as we've said before.
Cllr Raymond Balcombe - 0:37:36
Did you want to comment on that?
Councillor Glynn.
Thank you, Chairman.
Just in relation to the budgetary point,
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:37:42
and I know we've had these discussions
at overview and scrutiny as well.
So I won't repeat points that I've made necessarily,
But it is important to say if we don't bring this income in,
we're going to have to find savings or income
from elsewhere.
And I'm going to go on to talk about the budget shortly,
but we're looking at a 3 .4 million gap,
subject to some change in movement.
We've got a lot of difficult decisions to make in the next
financial year.
And actually I think what members need to weigh up is this
decision compared to other decisions that we might have to
make, whether that be about staff or services.
That's one point that's really important to highlight.
I have always had my reservations around this, but we're now the only council in Essex not
doing it.
I understand the point around local government reorganisation, but as Councillor ... Sorry,
not Councillor Small.
Mr Small quite rightly pointed out at some point this is going to be implemented.
It's an agreed process in terms of separation that we have to go through, so it's better
that we prepare ourselves for it now because it's going to happen in a couple of years
down the line anyway.
I mean, and as I say, I've always been resistant to this.
I don't like extra taxes.
I don't like extra charges, but we're in a very difficult situation and this is a change
that I think it's become time to look at and make.
Thank you.
Councillor Pond.
Cllr Raymond Balcombe - 0:39:06
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Chris Pond - 0:39:12
I must say I agree with Councillor Whiskin.
I think this decision if it's made will be premature
and it will be extremely unpopular.
EFDC is quite unpopular enough as it is with various things.
And we are what's called a waste collection authority.
The extra charges really accrue
to the waste disposal authority,
which is the county council at the moment.
and after LGR will be in the unitary authority and not us.
So I think we are making this decision far to pursue.
I think it is purely on economic grounds.
I think it's a disguised way of increasing tax on the people, which I disapprove of,
and our group is certainly judging on extra evidence
which has recently been given to O 'Neil's Group.
And I'd like to thank Councillor Baldwin for that.
We shall have to decide when the decision is made,
is published, whether to call it.
Thank you, Councillor Ponder.
I think first of all,
Cllr Raymond Balcombe - 0:40:26
we are giving everybody the option to buy in it or not.
We're not saying you have to buy into that service.
Secondly, as Andrew said, we're aligning ourselves
with the rest of the authorities around,
oh well, over all of Essex at the moment.
And if I'm right, I'm gonna ask James
to talk this one through.
We've got no choice really, have we?
We have to separate the food from April.
James Warwick - 0:40:57
Yeah, I think there's difficult beyond April,
there's difficulty in terms of disposing
the commingled food and garden waste.
The discussions in terms of funding from County Council
is only available now if we implement.
So this, if this decision's pushed further down the line,
whether that be under LGR,
it will end up costing a lot more
than it will if we implement now.
Thank you, James.
Any other questions?
Councillor Murray?
Cllr Raymond Balcombe - 0:41:38
I think my points are being covered, Chairman.
Thank you.
Councillor John Whitehouse?
Cllr Stephen Murray - 0:41:44
He's moved.
Thanks.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:41:47
Yeah, thanks for the updated costings in the report.
I mean, as you'll know from the scrutiny meetings, we've got concerns about the level of the
charge.
I was going to ask about the take -up predictions.
I mean, obviously, it's a difficult thing to predict, but I mean, is this based on experience
of authorities?
Is there a sort of a tried and tested formula for these things?
I mean, how do we are and how robust are these figures or how much these figures vary, you
know, if the take -up varies one way or the other.
I imagine because of the vehicles and things, it doesn't sort of, it's not just linear,
it must be a moment at which suddenly it costs a lot more or suddenly it costs a lot less.
Cllr Raymond Balcombe - 0:42:36
Yes, you'll see from Appendix A the different charges across different councils.
Yeah, I was talking about the take -up rather than the charges.
Yeah, and James will come in on the other bit.
James Warwick - 0:42:49
So the kind of 40 % this referenced in the report
is based on officer experience.
It's based on research throughout Essex.
So all the Essex authorities that
over the last couple of years have introduced a charge
tend to average out around kind of 40%.
It's also based on kind of the makeup of our district
and property size and the garden.
So we're, as officers, we're confident
that 40 % take up is easily achievable.
And your other point, it does vary.
So the number of vehicles that are required at the moment are based on that 40 percent.
We're building in enough room that if we got 50 percent, we've still got enough vehicles to collect the 50 percent.
If the, and obviously as that take -up increased, there's a point it will kick in that we would need additional vehicles and that.
And it could be the case that that extra vehicle
might not be at full capacity, but yeah,
we've kind of factored this in and kind of our discussions
at the moment in terms of SFS that provide the waste fleet,
a factor in all this in.
So it gives us enough room that no matter what happens,
we will have enough vehicles to provide service.
Cllr Raymond Balcombe - 0:44:34
Councillor Matthews. Thank you chair. It's a difficult one because
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:44:36
you know as this council we've historically always kept very very low
taxes we don't want to be in a position where we're looking to increase any
extra charges that's going to burden anyone in the district. However I do
think this is incredibly good value for money and while I appreciate
£60 is a lot of money. However, if you was to compare that for the cost of someone's
come and removed that waste, you know, an independent recycling, I mean, you couldn't
get them to collect it once for that cost. And I know members and officers who have got
family outside of the district would very much welcome a charge of £60 compared to
other areas. And it's also the other figures, the fact that you're talking about £450 ,000
You're talking about 600 ,000 pounds coming from Essex contributing to the district because
obviously down the line we're saving them a lot of money.
So we're getting that kickback.
So yes, when you isolate it and you look at it, 60 pounds that people were not spending
previously, I totally accept that.
However, when you look at the big picture and the amount of savings it's going to make
and the additional income that helps support the budget, as Councillor Holly Whitbread
said earlier there's a budget we've got a balance and if we can provide a great
valued service to our residents and and meet that be able to balance that budget
in the same way I for me it's an absolute no -brainer that this is a
really positive step forward. Thank you Councillor Matthews. Councillor Baldwin.
Cllr Raymond Balcombe - 0:46:14
Cllr Roger Baldwin - 0:46:17
Thank you Chairman yeah I mean I also like to do it to reiterate some of those
points. I do think that under LGR we will need to, moving forward, we will need to harmonise
and bring ourselves into alignment with other councils. And I think the sooner we get this
underway the better because it will lead to savings in the longer term. And I also think
that people that do have other opportunities to dispose of garden waste, which is we're
composting, I have compost myself, and also it is, I think it's worth noting that it is
free to take green waste to the recycling centres,
and sometimes I do that.
So there are kind of ways of avoiding the charge,
and I do very much agree with Councillor Matthew's point
that were you to use a private contractor,
it would be significantly more expensive.
And I think this is a very, very reasonable charge
that we want to impose.
And plus, of course, we do face a very, very tight budget
next year.
And I really do think that we need to try and raise a bit of revenue to try and offset
how much we're going to have to cut from other services.
So yeah, I very much support this.
Thank you, Councillor Boulding.
Cllr Raymond Balcombe - 0:47:34
If there's no other questions, committee, do you agree the three recommendations?
Thank you.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:47:57
Thank you.
Item 11, quarter four budget monitoring, Councillor Hollywood -Bryde.

11 Quarter 4 Budget Monitoring Report (provisional Outturn) 2024/25

Thank you, Chairman. First of all, I'd like to welcome Owen Sparks, who's our new section
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:48:18
151 officer. It's great to have you here, Owen, and he'll be here to answer some of
Owen Sparks - 0:48:25
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:48:28
the difficult questions if we get any today. This is a report for noting today. You'll
see it's a report which contains quite a lot of detail. It's basically the final position
on the budget from what feels like a long time ago, but from last year, the end of the
financial year.
Before I start looking a bit at the detail of the report, I'd just like to highlight
the difficult budget that we have ahead.
We just briefly touched on it then, but we're looking at a 3 .4 million pound gap to fill,
which means we're going to have a lot of difficult decisions to make.
Last year we had a really positive and collaborative relationship with scrutiny, and I think that's
to be even more important this year. My door is always open. I am here to listen to ideas
from all members from all across the chamber. I think we are going to have to have a lot
of honest and open conversations, whether it be on charges or services. I am very conscious
that it was very difficult last year and it is going to be even more difficult this year.
So looking at quarter four, we're in a relatively positive situation.
We did have an underspend of 1 .9 million, which is significant overall.
And this was largely due to additional business rates income, which we didn't expect, and
also underspends in key areas, including ICT, which was a theme throughout the last financial
year but also in transformation, corporate services and customer and community as well
as finance.
We do have some key and remaining pressures as well as some growing ones.
Homelessness is a persistent issue and a real challenge.
As we know when we're paying for temporary accommodation, that pressure goes on to the
general fund and becomes a difficulty for us there.
Also, planning fees, we're not taking in the planning fees that we'd expect, which is one
of the areas which we continue to see pressure in.
This report also highlights the housing revenue account, where there is a very significant
underspend.
I've already had the opportunity to meet with Councillor Smoot -Patel, who is the new cabinet
member for housing.
I welcome her to that role, one that I am familiar with, having done it for five years.
and we had a really positive conversation around that
underspend because actually, particularly in terms of the
capital underspend, it may well mean opportunity for our housing
estates as well.
The other thing to agree with in this report is the move
in reserves.
We've got an increase in the contingency reserve to $4
million, which is a very healthy position to be in,
in terms of reserves.
I also do note the transformation grant may be
something that we'll be looking at and reviewing
as part of this budget process as well.
I hope members have had a lot,
the opportunity to read the report in full.
I'm happy to take any questions.
As I said, I've got Owen here as well for any questions.
So that's the report and I hope members can note
and agree on the changes to the reserves.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Members of the cabinet.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:51:36
Any other members?
Councillor Morris.
Hi, thanks very much, chair.
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:51:44
I just had just a couple of questions.
Page 77, ICT underspend.
I just wanted to ask if this underspend was affecting our expenditure on IT security.
I mean, bad actors and hackers don't really care about our budget, they don't care about
LGR and they will do damage if they can.
I just want some assurance that the fact that we're underspending isn't affecting our focus
on IT security. That's my first question. Second one on page 78, I note that we're using
funds from North Weald to support the lending to QALIS. Can I ask you a little bit about
what the risk analysis, what risk analysis was done before that decision was taken? Thank
you. Thank you. Councillor Woodford.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:52:35
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:52:38
Thank you Councillor Morris for those questions. I'm very sorry I was distracted and missed
the first part of your question on IT but I think it was around security.
Yeah so expenditure on security I'm saying that's really important in this environment.
I think there was underspend and I will pass over to Owen but I think there was underspend on some
specific projects. This has actually been something that's been consistent probably for the last kind
two years of the budget, but I do note your comment in terms of security. I am actually
taking over the portfolio of ICT with the break -up of Councillor Patel's previous portfolio,
but I'm afraid I'm not completely on the detail, haven't only done it for a week, so I'm just
going to pass over to Owen to answer that question if that's okay.
Owen Sparks - 0:53:25
No, so we continue to be obviously aware of the concerns around social security and that
is a priority for the service and that continues to be developed.
The underspend, a lot of that is due to again revisiting our priorities in the light of
LGR, where we need to invest and where we need to wait and look at what's happening
with infrastructure going forward as that evolves and comes clearer.
So that's the main reason for the under spent but security is still a priority for the service. We continue to invest in the area
Thank you
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:54:00
Any other members? Sorry, there was a second question about the lending to know Northwield money's lending to koalas
page 78
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:54:18
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:54:24
Sorry, when I read the budget I saw on page 78 that some of the income from the sale of
the land, the sale of North Weald airfield had been used as part of the lending to Qalis
and I was asking about what risk analysis had been done before that decision was taken.
Thank you, Councillor Holywhip, right.
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:54:46
Thank you, I will pass to Owen. Obviously this was mentioned as part of the last budget.
I'm sorry for my lack of concentration on those questions,
Councillor Morris, but obviously this was looked at
as part of the budget process
and it was agreed as part of that.
On the risk assessment, I will pass over,
but obviously this site is a key strategic site
in terms of the Council's projects moving forward
and the important use of Northfield Airfield,
but if it's okay, I'll pass that Owen, thank you.
Owen Sparks - 0:55:12
So that forms part of the treasury strategy.
So what we've done is use internal borrowing instead of borrowing from the markets.
So as you had the cash to borrowing we've used that to really pass that money onto Collis.
So it's part of the normal process as Councillor Whitburn outlined about the risk assessment.
It's just how we've managed that within our internal resources as opposed to going to
the market tomorrow.
Thank you.
No other members?
Oh, Councillor Holly Whitburn.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:55:40
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:55:44
I should have also introduced Ms Donnelly, so we now have a full cohort of senior finance
officers, which is fantastic news for a difficult budget ahead. Thank you.
Good. Superb. We've got the recommendation as set out in the paper to note this report.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:55:57
Can we note it? Thank you very much. We then move on to Item 12, which was a slightly late

12 Any Other Business

One of the reasons why we delayed the cabinet by a week was in order to give members an
update and opportunity to look into local government reorganisation.
I thought it was worth, this was a good time now to start making members more aware of
local government reorganisation.
We've had the Portfolio Holder Advisory Group and the Chairman of Council made some really
good comments and questions from that Portfolio Holder Advisory Group, which Andrew answered
in a very balanced and sensible way. And I thought actually that was a good process by
which to develop this report that's come to you this evening on the steps forward and
what's actually happening with local government reorganisation. It has been a very intensive
process. In recent times it's taken an awful lot of officer time up. I think
Andrew and Jen and Owen are regular meetings for this project and it's now at that
time when some decisions will start to be made. Obviously what we've always said
is we wouldn't make any decisions until we had all the evidence before us and we
We now have received quite a weight of evidence from various
sources and obviously from in -house as well.
There's some important key pieces that are still missing
around local government debt, because all local government has
borrowing, there's good borrowing and bad borrowing,
and it's going to be an important factor as you pot
together future unitaries.
and one of the things that I think, Councillor Whitehouse?
I'll wait, you can have my name.
Oh, thank you.
One of the important things about this is the sustainability of whatever we do in the future.
There's no point in setting up councils to fail, especially when they're delivering some of your most important services.
And remembering we're not trying to create new district councils, we are effectively
creating a number of councils that will be like county councils, that will be delivering
adult social care, will be delivering children's services, will be delivering highways and
will have much bigger budgets to contend with and a whole range of different services in
addition to what we do as districts now. So it's really important that we get the right
number of unitaries. Personally, I've seen the evidence. I've seen it develop as we go
along. I know that if the five option was followed, it would be financially challenged
from the outset and all the reports that we've had to date show that very clearly. Two is
the optimum number of unitaries, but of course with the size of greater Essex, that would
be challenging. And therefore, as I think Andrew says within this report, and I like
the phrasing of it, is that free becomes your Goldilocks moment. It's the right size, it's
about the right size from a population point of view, it's financially sustainable, and
There is a what you know, it's functional, functional for the sort of things that we'll
be doing in the future.
We believe as we progress into the autumn, there could be up to maybe three business
cases, possibly four.
We heard earlier on today, there is a potential of a business case from Farrack that I think
you'll find interesting for four.
There is two that I see as in the options for free unitaries that both have similar
financial outcomes, slightly different on place related items, but both 3 .2 and 3 .4
of the options that we have seen make sense to go forward with.
There are other options available, of course.
But happy to take questions.
Everyone's had the opportunity to see the report and some of
the documentation.
Cabinet colleagues, Councillor Janet Whitehouse.
Councillor Janet Whitehouse.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Janet Whitehouse - 1:00:45
Yes, I've got a number of questions on the report.
2 .6 mentions these neighbourhood area committees which are going
to be perhaps those of local voice.
How does that sit with areas like Epping Forest, which does have parishes?
Is there going to be parishes and these neighbourhood councils, which as it says in the report, just be having another three tiers?
I just want to ask where they fit in. I don't know if you want to reply as we go through all of that.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:01:18
Yes, should I answer one at a time and then maybe call officers in to help with some of the detail?
The government's white paper that started the process of local government reorganisation is very quiet on town and parish councils.
That's because at this stage they're not looking at what they do or what they're about.
So there is no mention at this stage of town and parish councils within that.
What the government is very clear on is these local committees that they're keen to see as part and parcel of this.
I'm trying to think which letter it was, and Andrew might remember better than me,
there was a letter that said they did not want to see the creation of any more town
and parish councils.
So those that exist, they're not looking to create more parish councils.
And these local committees will be that important conduit between the new unitaries and local
communities.
However, I think where you've got good town councils like Loughton as a prime example,
I can see them playing an active part as part of these local committees and other councils.
I'm, you know, North Wales is very good and matching and all around the district we've
got some good examples, but of course Harlow isn't perished.
So they would not be looking to create new parish councils because otherwise you'd be
starting to look at almost recreating the tier again.
Andrew, have I got that right?
Yes, I think so.
I mean, neighbourhood committees are really seen
Andrew Small - 1:02:53
as a committee of the council really,
but populated only by members of that area.
And it's a bit like an area planning committee,
for example, that we used to have.
So, you know, made up of area from that committee
to make decisions relevant to that area only.
As the leader says, not all of Essex is perished.
So you can't rely on parishes as a mechanism to
deliver some of those more local services, really.
The government's preference is neighbourhood area committees.
There isn't a single blueprint for how they would operate.
In fact, how they would operate would very much be
a decision of the new unitary organisations.
It would be for them to determine how they structure
those committees, what powers they give to those
committees, but also how they choose to work with parish and
town councils as well alongside of those
neighbourhood area committees.
But we all know that the unitary organisations created probably,
you know, whether it's five or three or two or any other number
will be much bigger than they currently are today.
And so they'll need some kind of additional structure to make
sure that local voices are heard, understood,
and feel part of the decision -making
process as well.
Cllr Janet Whitehouse - 1:04:07
I have quite a few comments to make, so I don't expect such a long answer to all of
them.
So the next one is 2 .7, where it mentions a survey being jointly led by Jen.
Who is this, what is this survey asking, and who is being asked to respond to it?
Andrew.
Andrew Small - 1:04:29
So it's really, I mean, it's a targeted survey, really.
So when I say targeted, I mean it's a proportional survey.
So it's not gone out to all residents of Essex as a whole.
It's gone out to a representative sample of views,
including some focus groups as well,
to make sure that the people are able to ask questions
in a, not just a single, give us your views,
and an opportunity to have a two -way dialogue
about people's views around it.
And what it's really seeking to do is not do you prefer this type of structure over
that type of structure.
What it's looking to do is ask those people what is important to you in terms of local
government.
What do you value?
What do you need?
What sort of outcomes are you looking for from your council?
And that will help us shape the structure and design of councils to make sure that we
respond to what people's needs are, that people consider to be their needs.
There will be an opportunity for a formal consultation exercise
once the government has received the bids.
It will then form a view and then it will go out to all
residents, organisations within Essex to express their views
about which one of those they prefer.
Will we see the result of that survey?
Cllr Janet Whitehouse - 1:05:48
Is that survey going to be available to us to see?
I think the results of that survey will be fed through to
Andrew Small - 1:05:55
members I think is part of the overall business case so that when you get to
consider the business case you'll see what people's feedback has been as part
Cllr Janet Whitehouse - 1:06:07
of that process. Okay, 211. You talk here it says in 211 social care cannot be
disrupted whilst local government is reorganised and the fewer alterations
there are to its current structure the more this risk is minimised. That doesn't
really make sense to me because at the moment social care is a county
responsibility, it's going to move to the unitary councils. One move to a unitary council.
It doesn't really matter if the unitary council is one of three or five or four, it's one move.
So I can't really see what's behind that. There's no need to respond if you don't want to. It's just
a point that I want to make, unless you very much disagree.
Andrew Small - 1:06:48
I think Essex is one of the most complicated areas that the government will have to
face when it deals with local government reorganisation
because of the current structure and its size, really.
I think there will be disruption.
I think that's inevitable, although there are ways to
mitigate that disruption on day one and push the
disruption to later on in the process, you know,
after the organisation has established itself.
But I think it's fair to say that the more divisions you
create of the existing structure, the more
complicated it becomes.
So, you know, if you divide it twice, for example,
that's a lot easier than if you're trying to divide
it five times.
And I think that's the point that's made there, really.
The more times you try to divide it,
the more organisations you create to deliver it,
more organisations the police have to deal with,
for example, when they're trying to deal with social
care issues, who have different policies and
different approaches to things,
the more complicated the landscape becomes.
So the fewer iterations there are of it, the easier it becomes to manage and to deal with.
Okay. Nearly there.
Cllr Janet Whitehouse - 1:07:54
2 .15, there's a reference in that to option 3 .2, and it comes up again in another paragraph,
but there's no option 3 .2 in the report.
I mean, you know, what is the 3 .2 of?
What's point one and point three and four and whatever else might be there?
Andrew Small - 1:08:13
So, I think basically option 3 .2 was a southern unitary and then the rest of the county divided
east and west.
It would put Eppin Forest in with Uttlesford, Harlow, Brentwood and with Chelmsford, but
there is also an alternative 3 .4 that looks very similar financially, gives a very similar
population but swaps out Uttlesford for Maldon.
So, still three unitary options, but slightly different to the one that's in here.
And the county is currently leaning towards 3 .4, which is the Malden rather than the Njattelsjord
option.
Both are on the table at this point in time.
Both are being worked through with further information to try and understand the relative
merits of each of those.
Sorry for not including a diagram.
I know the members of the Portfolio Holder Advisory Group have seen a diagram that explains
those different options.
but I'm not quite sure at this point in time whether that is a public document that I'm allowed to share,
hence the reason for trying to explain it verbally as opposed to giving you a map that would probably be easy to understand.
Okay, and the last one is 2 .17.
Cllr Janet Whitehouse - 1:09:18
It mentions here that the leadership of Epping Forest District has largely reached the same conclusion as Essex,
and somewhere else it talks, I imagine, the cabinet, the leader will keep the cabinet
and members of the portfolio advisory group updated.
There's just no input at all from the rest of us at all.
I mean, the cabinet, the leadership teams, all officers, it's a very, very small group
of people who are making these decisions.
And I really feel this just isn't democratic.
I mean, the residents ask me sometimes, when are we going to be consulted?
And it's not much comfort to say, well, you're not, and, you know, members haven't either.
So I just think that there should be an opportunity for us to see these business papers, for us
to make our decision on where it's going.
And I know this talk of having a special council meeting later on is far too late.
by then, whatever we say, is not going to be taken into account because the case will have gone in.
So I think it's really important that as soon as possible, all members have the opportunity to see these papers that you're making your case on,
and we have an opportunity to put our views. It's very economically based in the report, and that's important, obviously.
But, you know, I just think we would like to be involved in this. It's a very big decision, and it's not right.
There's just this very small number of people who are saying what our district's going to do
So I do hope you never proper council meet on it very soon
Yeah, thank you
Councillor Whitehouse and you make a good point
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:10:58
But the reason we set up the PAG group was in order that
Members of that group could share information with their own groups
Obviously some of the papers currently are private until they're made public which is like the options appraisals and everything else because
There's detailed information.
Personally, I'm happy to have wider debates of view and scrutiny here, and indeed when
it comes to the final decision, it will go to Council and then to Cabinet because it
would be an executive decision.
But I'm more than happy to have debates with people and to discuss how we get to the options.
It's not easy because there is so much information at the moment.
It's knowing what we can share quite openly and what we can't
share, but I am happy during the summer that as much information
as possible is put out there to members.
Bearing in mind, this is quite, moves quite quickly.
If I said to you, I sit on a number of committees that relate
to local government reorganisation,
and I know our team here have been literally two or three
meetings a week sometimes if not more,
and regular discussions are going on.
But it is really important that as a council,
the eventual decision is made by all of us.
You know, it can't be just me.
It can't be just the pack.
Can't just be the cabinet.
It will require a full council meeting to discuss as well.
Councillor Andrew.
Thank you.
Andrew Small - 1:12:35
I mean, I think it would be easier if we had arrived
a set of, a clear set of options early on in the process,
but the reality is, you know, the work that's being done
is so driven by the data, and the data has emerged
late in the process, and still emerging
at this point in time.
And it makes it really difficult to arrive
at a set of options to share with members,
to have an informed conversation about.
And I think, as the leaders made the point, really,
this is something that has to be a decision
of the whole council.
All members have to be informed,
but the point in time that they get a say.
And there will be an opportunity in advance of the council
arriving at a conclusion if it does,
and before the business cases is submitted.
And I think, you know, there are probably opportunities
for more information to be given to members
before we arrive at that meeting as well, really.
But if I ask you,
was it possible to give more information to members
in a way that was digestible before today?
Probably not.
because very much the opinions and the views and the business
cases and the options is still coalescing at this point in time,
which has made it extremely difficult, one, for offices,
in terms of, you know, actually building business cases,
but two, in terms of giving that information to a wider group
of members.
I think, and I don't want to speak for the leader
necessarily, but the portfolio holder advisory group is to kind
of share some of that uncertainty and the emerging
views and the stuff that's kind of coming out of the ether really at this point in time.
But without any clarity, it's more about just trying to guide the leader's hand in trying
to know which way should he be going at this point in time.
And I think it's been really useful for that, but not with the intention of denying a wider
membership of the council of information that is critical to them.
So very much in the space of trying to make sure that all members are properly informed
and properly able to make a decision in due course.
Thank you.
Pastor Murray.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:14:33
Yes, thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Stephen Murray - 1:14:38
First of all, can I thank you again for allowing me to be part of the advisory group, even
though I'm a sole independent.
I do thank you for that, and I think I've managed to attend all the meetings apart from
one, which for very good reasons was scheduled very quickly without much notice.
So I have tried to put an input.
I just want to share some of the comments that I have made along the way and then I
have got a couple of questions just to clarify because they are the questions I am being
asked by members of the public and they are the only questions I am being asked by members
of the public as regards this item.
I know we have got no choice but to do it but I still pick up very little demand for
it.
I've not had a single resident or constituent ask me, you know, we really want this.
There's very little understanding of it.
I think that applies particularly to the model of the Executive Mayor of Essex.
That's the one thing that they do know is happening and it's the one thing that some
of the people I speak to aren't really happy about.
So it will be interesting to see what the turnout will be in that election and if it
I'm tempted to think it's going to be high for the wrong reasons.
Not a genuine interest in how the Executive Mayor of Essex should be conducted.
You're absolutely right, I think, Chairman, from certainly the business cases I've seen
and the work that I've seen.
If we're going down this road, then three unitary authorities across Essex seem to be
the best.
They are slightly more in touch than if we went for two.
In terms of functionality and finance, they definitely seem better than going down to
four.
I wasn't convinced about that until I had a really good look at it.
Having said that, I still think they are going to be out of touch.
So I do think an important part of this further down the road is a separate issue, because
is not part of this at the moment,
is that parish councils are invited
to take more powers if they wish.
Because there will be some parish councils
that won't wish to and won't be able to and don't want to,
but there will be other parish councils that will want to.
I'll make a last point, which I don't think I've made
within the Advisory Portfolio Group,
But I am really worried about what kind of people you're going to get to stand for these
unitary authorities, and I'm not making a party political point here.
You're going to be talking about single -member wards, possibly of 5 ,000.
And if they're not single -member wards, they're going to be larger wards with two members,
but effectively one member per 5 ,000 residents.
You are going to have key services coming down from what we are counting, highways,
social services and education.
I am just not convinced that across the party structures and across the independent structures,
you are going to find the quality of people who are going to want to do that.
It is essentially a full -time job, I would argue.
We are going to be very much like the London Boers where it is a full -time job and the
turnover is exceedingly high.
So I am really worried about that and I think that is a real downside.
So if I just ask the two questions that I am repeatedly asked about, particularly bearing
in mind, in my view, the wrong decision the county made last year as regards elections,
Can I have it confirmed publicly, because I've had it confirmed via email, that next
year, May 2026, we will be having the first elections for the Executive Mayor of Essex
and we will be having the third elections for the third place candidate in Ephraim Forest
from 2024.
They will be up for re -election in 2026.
Is that right?
To the best of my knowledge that is correct there is definitely the mayoral
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:19:06
elections next year and there will be at this stage district council elections
this year and I've no reason to believe that they will not happen so I'm
expecting the third elections to take place. Again I can't see why they would
be cancelled unless something was to change and it would have to be done by
government. Thank you chairman.
Just to support the leader's statement, really,
Andrew Small - 1:19:32
MHCLG have been asked repeatedly this question by
all councils in other countries,
you would imagine, really.
And the answer has consistently been from MHCLG
that elections will happen next year.
Thank you.
Pastor Murray, do you have a question?
Two questions.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:19:51
Right.
Pastor Murray, you made some really good points
there earlier on.
Obviously, we've got no control over the people
who have come forward to take on the roles
of unitary councils, but that's the problem
that's been in local government now for a period of time
is finding candidates who want to be actively engaged
in local government.
So I think that's a challenge to all of us anyway.
I think it's a really good point well made.
I agree with your other conclusions.
I think if just look, we've had the benefit
of seeing the in -depth options appraisals,
but I think at some point that needs to be shared
for the wider audience.
and perhaps Andrew during your meetings with chiefs,
we can get some clarity over what we can release.
That would be helpful.
Any other members?
Both Councillor Calphers.
Thank you.
I'm going to be really, really grumpy.
Cllr Howard Kauffman - 1:20:43
I don't like LGR at all.
What's the point because I'm only one voice.
I'm sure others don't like it.
There's a lot of common sense representing us.
So I'm grateful for that common sense,
but it can get lost in the fury and the excitement of something bigger and something better.
I think the whole thing is nonsense and there should be a better way to do this.
Having one member for four to five thousand people is just plainly barking mad.
It's ridiculous.
And you've got people who have a day job as well and do a lot of this for, you know, where
you do it, you don't do it for the money, you do it because you enjoy it and you want
to do good work and put something back.
So you're going to completely push out people
who are perhaps a little bit older
who can then have got the time to become good.
The best counsellors are the most experienced ones
are the older ones in my opinion,
good young ones coming through.
But the older counsellors cannot cope with 5 ,000 people.
It is just nonsense.
And somebody should be saying that.
Somebody's gonna put their hand up and say,
that's ridiculous.
What happened to localism?
We're going to have committees deciding things based in Chelmsford for something local here.
It's hopeless.
I've got to go along with it because I have no choice.
But I do think much more clarity.
By the time it gets to a committee or discussion here, decisions will have been made.
I've been in that ship before.
It's ridiculous.
How can you decide things by 56 councils?
Here you can't.
It has to be a nominated group.
I sort of understand that.
much more transparency.
People have been having a go.
The vocal minority have a go at us,
but actually we've done a bloody good job.
People don't realise the job we've done,
because you only hear from the noisy few.
You don't hear from the silent majority.
We've done a very good job.
And when we're gone, they'll say they did a good job.
I wish this hadn't have happened.
And it's obvious.
I've got the T -shirt, I've got the book.
It's ridiculous.
but no one else seems to want to speak up against it.
I did 12 years ago, Councillor Kaufman, to be honest with you.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:22:58
I've been down this route numerous times
and I have to say to you,
I see a slightly different view to yourself.
I can remember back 12 years ago
when we discussed the same situation
and I think we were talking about
three possible unitaries back then
and we've been talking about two unitaries
for a long time since then, but if you look at the state of local government presently,
during the pandemic we learned the county council in some ways was too big,
districts were too small and parishes bent over backwards but could only do so much.
Government after government has changed its focus on devolution and has become more focused on
having a mayor for each county area.
So devolution you have to separate away from LGR to a
degree because that will happen regardless.
Financially you've heard the situation on the council's
budgets and the challenges ahead for the coming year.
I think if we carried on the way we were,
and this is for most districts, boroughs and cities,
the world will become increasingly more financially
challenging to the point where you'll see more
councils falling over.
And it's not going to get any better because we've already
seen some of the information coming through in the last
spending review that means money that was given in grants to
districts, boroughs and cities in particular is going to be
redistributed, which is the government's will and they're
the government of the day.
But local government reorganisation,
if we get it right and we must get it right for the residents
of Essex, it will deliver, but we have to get it right.
And I think Councillor Murray picked up on the two key areas of, again, social care,
children's services.
At the moment, and this is why it's important we get it right, is at the moment, if you
look at how Essex delivers adult social care, it's rated by CQC as good.
Children's services are rated as outstanding.
Our partner unitaries aren't quite at such a high level as what we are over in Furrock
and in South End, but we need to make sure whatever happens for the people of Essex that
we do the best we can.
So this is going to happen.
I'd rather be in there shaping it, getting the best we can for our residents than being
on the sidelines and it happening to us, because it's going to happen.
So I want to be actively engaged as a council
and making sure our voice is clearly heard.
And that's what I think our duty is to our residents.
Probably doesn't please you,
but that's my honest opinion at the present time.
Councillor Wilk, Alfred.
Thank you, chair.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:25:53
Is it too early to have a planning question?
Are you up for a development planning question at all?
Cause I just can't quite fathom in my mind
how this is gonna work.
Speaking of money that's been spent and needs to be spent,
I think, correct me if I'm wrong,
we spent over a million pounds just implementing
our local plan, which if LGR goes the way it is,
our local plan is suddenly, what are we going to do?
Are we going to emerge, are we going to take bits
of everyone's local plans and combine them into effectively
an old money, what I would have called
a regional spatial strategy?
But how does that then work?
Because planning in Epping Forest,
I mean, heaven forbid they put us in with Malden.
How are we looking at a five -year housing need
for an area that size?
How does it work?
Where will the offices be based?
How will the planning committees be based?
I mean, I'm very happy to have site visits on the coast.
But I just can't see how this is in any way, shape,
or form practical.
We can't get case offices in the local area
to help us determine planning applications now, let alone.
I mean, how, I mean, as I say, if it is, having been out to Malden, how many thousand square
miles are we talking?
How on earth can we run that effectively?
I just, I can't see it.
I'm sure we'll reach the challenge, and it will be a challenge.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:27:16
I haven't got all the answers tonight.
You wouldn't expect me to.
You know, at the end of the day, at the moment, until 27, when they have the shadow unitary
and 28 when the unitary becomes a real entity.
Obviously, there's a lot of work to be done,
but our local plan is our local plan.
If we go with Chelmsford, their local plan is their local plan,
and if we go with Malden, their local plan will be their local plan.
And I know the good news is that Andrew has done this before,
so I'm sure he's going to give us some answer.
So presumably, there will be a duty to cooperate comes in,
presumably to link the two?
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:27:56
until we've had time to review and such Andrew.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:28:01
I think each local plan will continue to be stay in place
Andrew Small - 1:28:05
really for until the new unitary set up.
And then they'll have to start a new local plan process
for the whole new area.
But until such time as that concluded,
each of the existing local plans hold weights,
holds weight in those areas for planning decision purposes.
Interesting.
Thank you.
Councillor Brooks.
Cllr Rose Brookes - 1:28:27
I know I've not been part of the advisory group, but when we read the first papers,
we talked about the shadow authority being elected in 2027, I think. How is that expected
to work? Is there a bit more detail available now?
Thank you. Andrew, you've dealt with this before, haven't you?
Andrew Small - 1:28:49
It will be part of the structural orders that the government determines when they've decided
on which option they want to be the option that is implemented.
So that structural order will talk a bit about what the shadow elections are, and more importantly,
how many members initially, under what boundaries.
I anticipate, because the county council has just been for a boundary review, that the
county council's new warding pattern will be the one that's used.
and then there will be multiples of members for those wards that will give you a number
somewhere in the right region of around up to about 100, say, give or take.
So that will be the initial arrangement, but as soon as the new shadow authority turns
into the new organisation itself on investing day, then one of the first things that will
happen is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England will undertake another full review
of that area to determine a new warding pattern
that will apply on the elections there,
for the next full elections of that organisation
in three, four years time.
Thank you.
Cllr Rose Brookes - 1:30:00
Members, this was really brought this evening
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:30:03
for you to note and to give some understanding
of what's going on.
I take on board Councillor Whitehouse's earlier comments
and we'll find ways of trying to keep members
better informed whether that be a member workshop in the summer or some other way
and we will undertake to see what documents we can release to all members
so they can get the best possible indication of what's going on. Members
can we just note that report for now? Thank you. Now we're going to move on to
any other business there is no any other business we need to move into the

13 Exclusion of Public and Press

exclusion of the public and press for two items for consideration
So if I have to read out the following statement to consider whether under section 100 in brackets a in brackets for the local
government act
1972 the public and press should be excluded from the meeting for the items of business set out below on grounds that they will
They will involve the likely
disclosure of exempt information as defined in the following paragraphs of
part 1 of schedule 12a of the Act as amended or are confidential under
section 100 in brackets a in brackets 2. Members can we agree to go into private
session? Thank you and can we please turn off the webcast?
Cllr Raymond Balcombe
District councillor for Rural East ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Raymond Balcombe
Cllr Roger Baldwin
District councillor for Loughton Forest ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Roger Baldwin
Cllr Rose Brookes
District councillor for Buckhurst Hill East and Whitebridge ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Rose Brookes
Cllr Howard Kauffman
District councillor for Loughton St John's ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Howard Kauffman
Cllr Will Kauffman
District councillor for Loughton Fairmead ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Paul Keska
District councillor for Ongar ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Paul Keska
Cllr Tim Matthews
District councillor for Waltham Abbey South and Rural ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Tim Matthews
Vivienne Messenger
Democratic Services Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Vivienne Messenger
Cllr Martin Morris
District councillor for Waltham Abbey North ward
Labour Party
View profile Cllr Martin Morris
Cllr Stephen Murray
District councillor for Loughton Roding ward
Independent
View profile Cllr Stephen Murray
Cllr Michael Owen
District councillor for Loughton Forest ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Michael Owen
Cllr Chris Pond
District councillor for Loughton St John's ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Chris Pond
Nigel Richardson
Service Director - Planning Services
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Nigel Richardson
Cllr Kaz Rizvi
District councillor for Chigwell with Lambourne ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Kaz Rizvi
Andrew Small
Chief Executive (Acting)
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Andrew Small
Owen Sparks
Interim Strategic Director / S151 Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Owen Sparks
James Warwick
Service Director - Contracts Partnerships and Procurement
Epping Forest District Council
View profile James Warwick
Cllr Chris Whitbread
District councillor for Roydon and Lower Nazeing ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Chris Whitbread
Cllr Holly Whitbread
District councillor for Epping West and Rural ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Holly Whitbread
Cllr Janet Whitehouse
District councillor for Epping East ward
Liberal Democrats
View profile Cllr Janet Whitehouse
Cllr Jon Whitehouse
District councillor for Epping East ward
Liberal Democrats
View profile Cllr Jon Whitehouse
Cllr Ken Williamson
District councillor for Buckhurst Hill West ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Ken Williamson
Cllr Graham Wiskin
District councillor for Loughton St John's ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Graham Wiskin