Council - Monday 15 September 2025, 7:00pm - Epping Forest District Council webcasts

Council
Monday, 15th September 2025 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Louise Mead
Share this agenda point
  1. Gary Woodhall
  2. Cllr Louise Mead
Share this agenda point
  1. Gary Woodhall
  2. Cllr Louise Mead
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  2. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  3. Cllr Jaymey McIvor
  4. Cllr Louise Mead
Share this agenda point
  1. Andrew Small
  2. Cllr Louise Mead
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Louise Mead
  2. Andrew Small
  3. Cllr Louise Mead
  4. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  5. Cllr Louise Mead
  6. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  7. Cllr Louise Mead
  8. Cllr Lisa Morgan
  9. Cllr Louise Mead
  10. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  11. Cllr Jaymey McIvor
  12. Cllr Louise Mead
  13. Cllr Mary Dadd
  14. Cllr Louise Mead
  15. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  16. Cllr Louise Mead
  17. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  18. Cllr Louise Mead
  19. Cllr Tim Matthews
  20. Cllr Louise Mead
  21. Cllr Howard Kauffman
  22. Cllr Louise Mead
  23. Cllr Rose Brookes
  24. Cllr Louise Mead
  25. Cllr Chidi Nweke
  26. Cllr Louise Mead
  27. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  28. Cllr Louise Mead
  29. Cllr Louise Mead
  30. Cllr Louise Mead
  31. Cllr Louise Mead
  32. Webcast Finished

Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, would you please be upstanding for your chairman of council, Councillor
Louise Mead.
Good evening, councillors.
Please be seated.
Cllr Louise Mead - 0:01:15
A very good evening everyone.
A warm welcome to everybody here, especially any members of the public.
I just want to remind any members of the public that there will be no opportunities to ask

1 Webcasting Introduction

questions this evening. If you wish to ask any questions, you can do so at our next ordinary
full council meeting, which will be in October, at which you can register to do so.
The meeting tonight is called an extraordinary meeting. It is to debate on one subject only,
and this is the local government reorganisation for Essex. May I ask noise levels to be kept
to a minimum and that mobile phones of everybody, if possible, can be kept on silent? Thanks.
So item one on our agenda is the webcasting introduction.
So can I please ask Mr Woodall to read the webcasting introduction.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Gary Woodhall - 0:02:48
The Chairman would like to remind everyone present 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
the possible use of those images and sound recordings.
If any public speakers on Microsoft Teams do not wish to have their image captured,
they should ensure that their video setting throughout the meeting is turned off and set
to audio only.
Members and public speakers are reminded to turn on their microphones before speaking
and to turn them off when they are finished.
Thank you, Chairman.

2 Apologies for Absence

Cllr Louise Mead - 0:03:27
Thank you. Item two on our agenda is apologies for absence so Mr. Woodall do
Gary Woodhall - 0:03:33
we have any apologies for absence? Thank you chairman we have apologies for
absence from councillors Bulcombe, Shilal Holden, Councillor Pond, Councillor Stocker,
Councillor Williamson, Councillor Baldwin, Councillor Allgood and Councillor Murray.

3 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Louise Mead - 0:03:50
Item 3 on our agenda are declarations of interest. Do any councillors need to declare
an interest for our meeting this evening?
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:04:05
Thank you, not a major declaration of interest, a non -pecuniary one, but I am a dual -hatted
councillor so I also sit on Essex County Council, although that makes no difference to what
we're deciding here this evening.
Thank you, and Councillor Holly Wibbrough.
Thank you, Chairman, can I make the same declaration?
Thank you.
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:04:22
Councillor McIver.
Same declaration, Madam Chairman.
Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 0:04:27
Thank you.
Cllr Louise Mead - 0:04:32
So item four on our agenda tonight

4 Local Government Reform in Essex - Support for Business Case

is local government reorganisation,
support for business case,
which you will find on pages three to 90
on your agenda this evening.
During our debate, may I remind councillors that this is not a debate about whether local
government reorganisation actually happens in Essex. This has already been decided, so
we are debating on the options this evening. May I ask councillors to make it clear if
they wish to speak by raising their hands and ensuring my Vice Chairman has recorded
their name. To be fair on all of those here this evening wishing to speak, I will allow
a maximum of five minutes for each person that wants to speak. Before we begin this
evening, I am going to ask Andrew Small, the Chief Executive, to make his presentation.
Andrew Small - 0:05:30
Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I know many of the members
in the chamber have been involved in the process so far,
but many haven't equally.
So the leader suggested and with the chairman's blessing
that I give a quick, a very quick,
precisely of the key considerations
that are facing members this evening in reaching a decision.
I must just share a presentation.
So, as has already been discussed, we're not going to consider whether local government
reorganisation happens or not. That's out of our hands. But the presentation will just
talk about the key considerations, as I say, that will be useful in helping members reach
decision on local government reorganisation in Essex.
So the government's criteria for deciding, there are six criteria that the government
set out within its white paper last year. These being a single tier of local government
based upon sensible places, right sides to achieve efficiencies, improved capacity and
with stench shocks and the government did issue initially a target of half a million
population in each unitary. That now has been reduced to a guiding principle. So the government
is prepared to consider any case above or below that based upon its merits.
Prioritised the delivery of high quality public services. Proposals reflect joint work and
is informed by local views. I would like to say that the officers and members throughout
Essex have worked jointly and in a collaborative fashion to try and reach the delivery of these
business cases. The options should support devolution and it should strengthen community
engagement and neighbourhood empowerment as well. So these are the guiding principles.
I'm going to focus mostly, I think, on the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve
capacity and withstand shocks?
Excuse me.
There we go, thank you.
So there are four models, or four business cases
that have been developed based around different
interpretations of much of the same data.
They are briefly set out in front of you there.
There's a three unit tree model option,
which puts Epping with Harlow, Braintree, sorry,
Brentwood, Chelmsford and Maldon.
There is a four unit tree model developed
by Thurrock council, the groups Epping Forest
together with Harlow, Brentwood and Thurrock.
There is a four unit tree model developed
by Rushford District Council,
That is Harlow, Epping Forest and Uttelsford.
And then there's a five unitary model
that groups essentially Epping Forest
with the same two councils that Rocheford do.
Populations in each of these models range
from three unitaries to 600 ,000 to 730 ,000.
Under the four unitary Thurrock model,
It's from 420 ,000 to 550 ,000.
And the Rochefort model is from 326 to 641.
So that's a difference of, well, the largest is twice the size of the smallest under that model.
And then at the five unitary model, which has populations varying from 325 ,000 up to 510 ,000.
So, in key consideration, I think, when you boil all of the arguments down, for most members,
will be representation of people versus the efficiency delivered by local government reorganisation.
And I put a simple graph, this is a doomed version, which demonstrates that the larger
of the council, then representation is probably generally
lower because there's such a large organisation.
But conversely, the efficiency of that council is likely
to be larger because it doesn't have to duplicate
its structures as much as fewer officers,
fewer systems and so on.
At the other end of the scale,
with your five unitaries is put forward,
you have much greater representation
because there are more councils
which are arguably closer to the communities.
But in creating each of those new unitaries,
they all come at a cost.
So not just in terms of the creation,
but also staffing structures and systems
and all of the duplication that happens across Essex
from having more unitaries.
So arguably, I would say somewhere in the middle,
there's a sweet spot.
But that's based upon or depends upon everybody's relative perspective on each of the factors
that are in consideration.
I talked about representation.
So these are the revised Councillor numbers that would relate to each of the models that
have been put forward.
So three unitary councils would have 285 councillors split across those three councillors, each
representing 4 ,800 members of the electorate.
The four unitary Thorek model would have 280, so not dissimilar, 4 ,900 members of electorate
to each councillor.
Rushford, 285, again similar to the previous two models.
But the five unitary option has 434,
proposes 434 councillors, each representing 3 ,224.
I think this is relevant because I think some people
associate more councillors, sorry, more councils
being close to the community
because they've got more councillors.
There is a statistic that was asked in a parliamentary question earlier this year, and that is the
average number of electorate per councillor in the existing unitary councils that exist
up and down England, and that is 4 ,600.
So while although in each of the business case options there is a proposed number of
for each of those new unitaries.
The reality is, the Boundary Commission, upon creation...
I'm just going to ask you to stop for a moment whilst we...
Sorry, councillors, I'm just going to pause for a moment
whilst we find out what's going on out there.

4 Local Government Reform in Essex - Support for Business Case

Cllr Louise Mead - 0:13:03
Cllr Louise Mead - 0:13:25
Andrew Small - 0:13:38
So the point I got to in terms of representation in terms of a number of Councillors in each
of the new unitary councils. Although the business case for five suggests a higher number
of councillors overall, with a lower representation in terms of number of electorate to each councillor,
the average number of councillors to electorate within England is currently 4 ,600. As soon
as the new unitaries go live, no matter what is within the business cases, the Boundary
review is one of its first exercises.
And the Gandera Commission for England is currently
determining electorate to council numbers of somewhere
around 4 ,600, 4 ,800.
Every council is different, but that's the average
it's currently coming out at.
And that's reflected within the national average
for unitaries, unitaries, councillors to electorate.
So, the point being that even though the business case for five argues that it's closer to the
community because it will have more councillors, I think very quickly after the council start -up
and the boundary commission come in and review that, we'll probably find the same number
or the same ratio in the five unitary business case as we do in every other business case.
So how do we deal with unitary councils which are much larger than today's councils by any
measure?
Even at the smallest unitary is 320 ,000 which is considerably larger, for example, than
the current Epping footprint.
I would just say though in comparison, of course, that the county council has a population
of one and a half million residents and manages that with 70 Councillors. So it can be done.
I mean, at some level, county council services will be delivered at a much more local level,
whilst district council services will be delivered at a much larger level. But they're all still
big. So how do we address that difference in terms of how do people get their voices
heard, how do they feel that the council represents them, how do they access their services.
The government's preferred model is neighbourhood area committees.
So these are, they will be, each unitary area will be divided into a number of unitary,
sorry, number of neighbourhood area committees.
Every resident will be in one of those neighbourhood area committees, and so they will be much
closer to the communities so people can associate with them.
The neighbourhood area committees is the government's preferred solution and therefore features
in all of the business cases that have been put forward. Each neighbourhood area committee
will be populated by all of the elected members from within that area and the chair of those
committees will be one of those committee members. It is expected that the neighbourhood
area committees will also be given a budget and responsibilities as well, so they have
real power and real influence in determining service delivery and policy to an extent within
those areas. It is expected that police, health, fire and parishes will also be invertees to
these neighbourhood area committees so that they are a much more representative group
and a voice for the views of local people. They will also have the ability to scrutinise
services that are delivered in its area, so that all the things
like adult social care and children's services,
we'll also be able to express a view on those and feed those
into the cabinet and full council at the new unitary.
But importantly, although they are a feature of all business
cases, reality is that it will be down to the new unitaries to
design how those committees actually work and what their
footprint is. But it should address that difference between being really large councils and being
how they are able to interact with residents at a more local level.
So savings and payback. There are a number of financial models that have been developed
to try and work out the overall benefits of each of the business cases. And they've arrived
at different results to an extent based upon, well for some, based upon what it is they're
trying to prove. So, the numbers are in the table there. The business case for three anticipate
£38 million worth of savings. That's just savings as a result of reorganisation. That's
not as a result of changes in service delivery or seeking
public sector reform, as the government terms it.
Four unitaries say 55 million.
For Thoreau, Rocheford say 31 million.
And five unitaries say 135 million.
I think personally I would say that was counterintuitive.
I think, you know, having more unitary councils creates more
senior officers, more systems, more back offices, for example.
And as I say, if you ask me a personal question, which
financial model is the right one, I'd say I wouldn't really
hold much store in any of the financial models that have been
developed. I think to an extent they are all estimates about how
a council might structure itself in three years' time, based
around assumptions that aren't for the current councils to take the decisions around.
And I think there's a degree of trying to find an answer that fits the belief really
as opposed to born in scientific evidence really.
So all of them predict that they'll pay back within a relatively short period of time based
upon their own business cases.
And as I say, I don't think necessarily that you can look
at all of the business cases and all of the numbers,
and you can arrive at your own conclusion.
Each argues that their own is the most favourable,
but the reality is I think it's very difficult to prove one
way or the other.
What I keep coming back to is a belief that fewer unitaries must
cost less than more unitaries.
It's probably easier to create because the existing councils
have to be, particularly the existing county council
has to be divided into fewer pieces.
And with that comes lower risk and lower risk
the services will be, failed to be delivered correctly
as a result of changes in reorganisation.
So conclusion, all councils will be large.
That's, you know, whatever, whichever option you go for.
Five isn't materially that much more local than three really.
Even under the five business case option,
the largest council is still over half a million population.
More councils don't necessarily mean more councillors
or greater representation as I highlighted
through the earlier slide.
Residents in practise will still associate
with their community, not with their council.
So people associate with their,
probably they're very local, the town or the village.
They don't necessarily associate with Epping Forest,
for example.
And so there needs to be a solution that
hears individual communities.
Both financial models are built on sweeping assumptions.
I think we probably discount most of the numbers
to some extent, other than at a very high level.
I would say three feels financially more
resilient than the other models available.
Two unitaries, which is one of the options that was examined
but discounted, is too big by far.
Five, I would argue, is too small.
And three feels about right.
But future local arrangements will be designed by future
councils, and it's probably in that space and the new
councils for those new organisations that need to be
trusted to design solutions that make sure individuals' voices are heard. That's what
I wanted to say, thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you. So we're now ready to debate. If
you could put your hands up if you would like to speak and my Vice -Chairman will take down
Cllr Louise Mead - 0:22:38
your names. Thank you.
Would you like to speak first, Councillor Whitbrough?
Yeah, thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Mr Small, for that presentation.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:22:49
I have to say I've been impressed by every presentation we've received as a council because they're so balanced and open about what the decision is.
Of course, this is a major decision, not just for us as a council, but for the whole of Essex, and of course we are going to see change, whatever, because it's a government directive to change.
The White Paper has told us what the future looks like.
And we here in Epping Forest decided that we would rather be
shaping the future than have the future shape us.
So we have played an active part in looking at the future of
local government.
And I think, first of all, we have to recognise the complexity
of the current system.
We have 15 different authorities across Essex.
And of course, the two -tier system is very confusing to
people, not knowing where they go to for each service,
whether it's for waste, whether it be for highways,
whether it be for social care, for a whole range of reasons.
So this is a problem that government after government has
talked about addressing.
Indeed, the last government made quite big strides on it,
and this government has pushed the agenda further forward.
And we know as of May next year, we will have a mayor of Essex as
well with a combined authority.
So eventually, I think the important thing to start with
here is none of the institutions that we currently recognise will
exist post May 2028.
There won't be a county council.
There won't be district councils.
There will just be unitary councils.
And those unitary councils won't be the same as what we are now.
You're not creating a super district and you're not recreating the county.
You're recreating a new unitary council which combines both of those together.
And that's where the benefits come from for our residents.
And I think the clear focus we have to keep here is our residents and making sure that
they get the best service possible.
And we've heard very clearly, whether you go for five unitaries or three unitaries,
eventually when we have a boundary review done post -2028,
that the number of council, average number of councillors
will be around 4 ,600 per councillor.
So actually if you end up with a five unit tree configuration,
you'll end up with less councillors in some areas than more.
So that just goes without saying.
The most important thing for me is about sustainability and how
How you make sure that in the future councils aren't falling
down and they can afford services that our residents
rely upon.
Social care, children's services, SEND,
really expensive items which have seen a massive increase
in cost in recent years.
So it's very important that the new authorities are able to cope
and be sustainable.
And that's what concerns me most about the five configuration.
There are different figures and no one's really comparing
like with like.
There are two different financial sets of figures,
one by PWC, one by Grant Thornton.
PWC was actually commissioned by all 15 councils,
Grant Thornton by those who are pursuing the five option.
So I think we have to be very, very clear about that.
And it's important that we get the figures right,
because if we get it wrong, we will not be able to afford a
capital programme to repair people's roads and build the
schooled places and make the improvements for capital
provision in the future.
So we have to make sure we get it right for those reasons.
And again, we have to make sure we get it right so we can afford
the services into tomorrow.
The five configuration, to the best of the information that
I've seen and I've been evidence driven throughout this whole process.
The five configuration will lead to council struggling.
Indeed, I can't imagine Basildon and Faroq together as a unitary authority.
I can see that being fraught with difficulties because of the debt that
already exists.
And debt is an important factor to take into account.
No council is debt free, but some councils have more debt than others.
Some of that debt is asset based, some of it's not.
So we have to make sure that when we put unitaries together,
they are sustainable from that point of view,
that their debt doesn't sink them on day one.
And I believe if we look at the five arrangement,
we could see at least two councils that start their life in a position
where they would soon be in trouble financially.
The four unit tree is slightly better, options are slightly better than the five unit tree,
purely because there's fewer of them and therefore fewer set up cost.
I'm not sure I like the idea of Epping being with Thorek, but you know, there we go.
It's there as an option for people to look at and I'm not sure that the Rochford Four
is really a sensible for, seems to be based more around
Rochford not being with South End than anything else.
And I think, as I've heard several times,
the free option becomes the Goldilocks moment.
It's not too big, not too small, very much the Goldilocks moment
for local government, where they're big enough to be able
to do all the things you want to do, cope with the debt,
and make sure that you've got sustainable councils
for the future, councils that can invest in place, that can continue to deliver new school
places that will be very much needed in the future, continue to invest in roads, continue
to invest in the things that matter to our residents.
So for me, I have eventually, after looking at all the evidence and in the round, which
I've been privileged to see on a regular basis, I have come to the point of recognising that
is the best way forward. It's the best way for our residents, businesses and of
course the residents of tomorrow. Thank you chairman. Thank you.
Cllr Louise Mead - 0:29:22
Councillor John Whitehouse did you wish to speak? Thank you chairman. Yeah this
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:29:28
is yet another council debate where my sort of first reaction is I wouldn't
start from here.
But here we are.
And forced by the government, the county council go through
what I think is actually a flawed process on a time scale
I wouldn't choose.
But there's a lot at stake.
And it's important we make a choice tonight.
I mean, across Essex, there's hundreds of millions of pounds,
well over a billion pounds spent on public services,
really absolutely vital services, adult social care,
children's services, special educational needs, planning
decisions, housing, all the rest of it.
And I think we mustn't miss the fact that if got right, there
are opportunities as well as risks with change.
Linking up housing and social services actually brings real
potential benefits for residents where, you know, those two
issues, you know, have a real, you know, big impact.
Poor housing leads to all sorts of health and social problems.
Integrating waste collection disposal.
People look really surprised when you tell them that one authority collects the waste
and the other gets rid of it, but that's what happens at the moment.
A close relationship between highways and planning.
How often have we sat in planning committees?
And suggested that would be a good idea.
And perhaps a more integrated approach to built environment.
So if the council's elected new shadow authorities get this right,
there are benefits potentially to be had.
But for it to work, we need a geography and a structure that reflects the communities,
the geography and the economies of Essex.
And that I think is where the, that's a fundamental flaw I think with Essex County Council, three council model.
I mean, I accept, a lot of debate has been around finance.
It's extremely unhelpful that the two different models and
the two main options come up with such strikingly
different conclusions.
And I think a lot of that is to do with the assumptions that
both have started from.
It's not entirely surprising the three council financial
projections prefer the three council model than the five
council projections prefer the five council models.
It's also important to remember that the differences between the models as a percentage of overall
public spending in Essex are significant amounts of money, but in percentage terms quite small,
and the margins of error on these things are huge.
When you think that one complex social services package could easily cost more of your entire
senior management structure of a council and probably for all the councils in
Essex combined, it's those decisions which really are going to affect the
financial future of the councils in Essex, you know, rather than at the
margins how many councils there are. And we've seen, I think, that large councils
don't necessarily mean better. I mean the largest council in England, Birmingham,
has got the commissioners in. The largest council in London, Croydon, has got the
There are diseconomies of scale as well as economies of scale.
More layers of management potentially.
Bigger contracts, more difficult to manage, more difficult to actually find people willing to tender efficiently for contracts
because only a few companies can do it and there's less competition.
Potentially more siloed work in.
So, one could go between the difference between the two models.
I won't do that because I think ultimately what we heard earlier was right.
Both will be wrong, but they'll be wrong in different ways.
And it does come back to what is best for our district.
And it worries me, it's a lower common denominator
aspect to the Essex County Council proposal.
So it splits the county in three, like sort of Neapolitan ice cream.
And then everyone gets a bit of coast, everyone gets a bit of countryside,
everyone gets a city, a couple of authorities get a port, a couple get an airport.
Well actually I think to build community you want to build on what's common to a
community rather than just try and have three Mini Essexes.
But councillor Whitehouse you have 30 seconds before your five minutes.
Okay so there's a five council option supported by ten council so far and the three council
options supported by the leadership for Essex County Council. The five council option
supported by Council of Political Complexion, Conservative run, Lib Dem run, Labour run, Independent led, no raw control.
There's a five council option which I think, more than any other proposal on the web, follows existing structures.
The health geography, the CCG used to be at West Essex, the current ICB unites Uttlesford, Harlow and Epping Forest.
Even the Parking Partnership unites those three councils.
We have nothing to do with Chelmsford or Brentwood with that.
Even in turn in the County Council, they've had West Essex area offices.
They've never had an Epping, Harlow, Brentwood, Chelmsford and Maldon.
Can you sum up please, Councillor Whitehouse, because you've had five minutes.
So I think the best thing for Epping Forest residents, indeed the best thing for Essex,
is just to go with the five council options tonight.
It is what gives us local government and representative government.
Councillor Lily Morgan.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Louise Mead - 0:35:12
Cllr Lisa Morgan - 0:35:15
I have tried to condense everything because we have only got five minutes.
I first want to say thank you to Andrew for sending the slides that we have just seen
from last week.
I actually enjoyed the bedtime reading.
And I appreciate that the leader of EFDC wanted two authorities and we mainly looked at the
three authority last week, but after having spent 16 years analysing risk assessment and
things in my previous career and being involved previously in the Unitary Council, it's
really been good to look at this proposal from another angle for me. In my opinion,
and I'm sure my fellow Efrig member Tom, Councillor Bommage, would probably agree,
this decision has probably already been made, as we've just heard that the leader of Essex
County Council, Kevin Bentley, and his team will favour. But there's 14 local authorities
plus Essex County Council. Seven have already decided that on the five authority model,
three have meetings this week that have suggested that they favour the five authority model
and want to join together, which is obviously South End meeting tonight,
Rochford and Castle Point meeting tomorrow.
Harlow has serious reservations about the LGR.
Thoreauk favours the four authority system. EFDC, who's been looking at the three authority
and Braintree who undecided are both meeting tonight. I previously asked about catastrophe
risk, whether that be insurance or cap bonds. I was given an answer about contingency funds,
which, thank you very much, but the catastrophe risk is something that EFDC really need to
consider when we've united with a seaside town such as Malden or an authority such as
Zurich who runs at a great loss and can't balance their books. Seven years ago
Malden built 65 houses on the floodplain and now has a mandatory 569 units agreed
in 2025. With rising sea levels and excessive high spring tide this doesn't
bode well for the thousand plus houses being built on Westcombe Park
Haybridge. That has flooded numerous times over the years. As well as the
sites of Wycombe Place and the Handley Gardens, Malden are encouraging younger
families to the area. This will put an increased strain on our already overstretched child
services that we have just heard about from Councillor Whitehouse, with child autism on
the rise and more children needing EPs, educational psychologists, and Essex County Council having
3 ,500 applications a year. That is something else we don't seem to put into these figures,
or I couldn't find it in these figures. If we had a five tier system like the 71 .4 %
of our other authorities want, we could link with Uttlesford Council. Although they have
had the Uttlesford Granta and it hasn't flooded since 2001, Essex County Council shows no
historic date on flooding for this site, unlike Malden, which is a seaside town, and they
have obviously used flood defences but it's not necessarily working. As the leader of
Uttlesford Council, Councillor Patriona Lee, said in a statement this month, we've been
working closely with councils across the county. That's why we've actively considered the five
unitary model, which I believe is the strongest path.
I personally believe that joining with Uttersford and
Harlow is a less vulnerable option for us and something
that we should consider.
We've spoken to residents from Cross's authority.
Tom and I have spoken to them.
And we're now voicing their opinions,
although they would like more information and input
as residents.
It appears that the three -tier Tokyo -Tifen algorithm was used.
Why was a different methodology used for this data analysis compared to others?
Councillor Whitford has touched on his opening remarks, including the debt risk.
This was probably looked at by the government and their debt reduced going into the new
authority.
Three may be a Goldilocks moment, but upon reflection, is three really the best way forward
or should we be looking at five authorities like our counterparts in the area and our
Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Morgan.
Councillor Whitbread, would you like to respond to that?
Cllr Louise Mead - 0:39:22
Thank you, Chairman. I won't go into detail on every member's views, because that's their
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:39:26
views and they can develop their own views as they go, as long as they've looked at all
the evidence in detail. What I would say, members have to be aware of, each council
can only put forward one scheme.
They can only support either a three, a four,
or a five option to put forward.
No one has made a decision yet.
And when this goes to government,
when these plans are submitted on the 26th of September,
government will decide after doing a period of evaluation as
to which ones they want to go forward on.
That evaluation will also include a consultation, but they will sift out those which are seen
to be wrong.
And what I would again remind about, with the five option, it does come down to whether
or not they're viable.
And that will be the same for the three option and the same for the four option.
And currently the situation is there are some councils that haven't had their council meetings
yet.
At the end of the day, this is an executive decision.
What we're looking for is an indicative vote this evening,
which we'll do at the end.
So some councils have gone for the five.
My biggest concern about the five, and I will say this,
is that they built the narrative before they had the evidence.
And that's what makes it deeply flawed.
They built the evidence base to fit the narrative, not
the other way around, which is why I was very clear from day
I would always look at the evidence first before making a decision. I have seen the
evidence for all cases and that is how I have come to my decision.
Councillor McIver. Thank you Madam Chairman. I want to start
Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 0:41:18
by saying how I do not see the logic in carving a historic county into five, two, three meaningless
units. If you ask the people of Epping Forest where they identify, they identify with Essex,
they're proud to identify with Essex, but I appreciate this isn't a debate, as you mentioned
in your earlier remarks, about whether or not this is a good idea. Because we know the
answer to that question because the people out there, our residents, would say they don't
want it to change. But I welcome the fact that, for example, highways aspects will be
done at a more local level. I think that adult social care can be better delivered at a local
level. I think SCN has already, we have an emergency when it comes to children's
services in this country, home to school transport, the demand is enormous and so
I think there is real benefit and advantage to this being being done at a
local level, which is why I don't believe that a free option would work. I think
the best option in this scenario is as local as possible because it's a balance
isn't it, members, between power and delivery. The power to deliver on all of the local government
services, which is what we get from one unitary authority, versus the pragmatic opportunity
to deliver, for example, home to school transport for young people, adult social care. Where
is the advantage to our residents with an enormous authority responsible for everything
think, from, for example, if we take the option of coast of Essex to the border of Hertfordshire,
where is the logic in that? There is no logic. It is one word. Illogical. So if we're going
to do this, we need to stop thinking about electoral benefits to certain borders, because
I'm aware that that happens, having been on the Boundary Review Committee at Essex County
Council, our priorities need to be with our residents.
What is right for them?
I would argue, having spoken to chief executives and leaders
of unitary authorities who have all said the same thing,
it doesn't work.
But we are where we are.
I don't even think the government has a mandate
to deliver this.
So what is the right thing for our residents?
I tell you what, the answer isn't in this room.
The answer is asking our residents,
as I did at the weekend, I showed them the agenda for this meeting.
I said, which one?
One of the residents summed it up very well.
He said, is there an option for none of the above?
But based on the options we have, I feel we have to think about delivery of services at
the most local level.
How frustrating is it for us when we speak to Essex highways and we give an RN postcode
such as Stanford Abbotts and they say, oh no, that's London, that's not even Essex.
Because an officer can't possibly know every single part of Essex.
but they can West Essex. They can West Essex. They can know every bit of
Uttlesford, Harlow and Heping Forest. That is plausible. So when it comes to this
decision I urge members to think about frontline services that their residents
use, what is right for them and I think you'll find the right thing for them is
the most local option. It is the option that is practical. We have an M11 that
links every part of West Essex within about 25 minutes if you exclude a few villages like
Ugly Green. We have an opportunity to do something pragmatic and practical with a smaller unitary,
but I do want to put on record the view of my residents in Onger, and that is that they
don't want this. One thing we can all look forward to, members, is by the time this is
actually implemented, we will have a new national government which takes county patriotism seriously,
I believe if the polls are correct and therefore this will likely not ever be implemented,
we hope.
But for now we have to think of our residents and I would urge members to go with an option.
I appreciate our vote is not binding, that is a shame, but I would appreciate us going
for the most local option.
Think of someone in your ward that you've helped.
What do they want?
What do they want from their council?
They want services delivered on the front line really well.
You cannot do that with an enormous super unitary authority.
You cannot do that with carved up meaningless units that all of the proposals are.
But I urge you all also to think of our cultural identity as Essex and as Epping Forest and
think about who we are most in line with culturally.
Because it is a thing, as Councillor Whitehouse says, it is a thing.
and I don't think anyone's cultural identity and community identity has been
taken to consideration all of this process and that is a big criticism I
have of the government. But I urge Epping Forest District Council to ask our
residents, ask them what they want as I did at the weekend and they want a local
council and let's remember the key word Madam Chairman as I sum up. Key word
Local government. This is local services delivered locally. Let's not make it an enormous unitary
where nobody has any identity.
Cllr Louise Mead - 0:46:39
Thank you Madam Chairman. Thank you. Councillor Will Coughlin. No? Okay. So
Councillor Mary Dadd please. Thank you Madam Chairman. I'm also an
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:46:52
ongoing Councillor and I have heard different feedback. However what I wanted
to say was the briefing that this council had last week was very informative, as has
been all the documents sent out to us. My leaning is towards three unitary authorities
for a number of reasons. One is to be able to deliver the social services more easily
and efficiently, but I'm wondering whether we have to be with Malden because our natural
thing and including in our local plan, we have of course got the London, Harlow, Stansted,
Cambridge corridor which is very strong in not only economic development but also where
new town is and it is a question really to the leader if we decide to go with the three
unitary would we have to be with Morden because in my view it makes more sense as Councillor
McIver talked about culturally a lot of people link quite rightly with Uttersford and Bishopstorford
but also Brentwood because of parliamentary constituency is Brentwood
an ongoing after all. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Holy Whitbread. Thank you
Cllr Louise Mead - 0:48:30
Chairman. I don't know if the Councillor Chris Whitbread wants to come back to Mary
Dads point. Oh thank you, thank you Chairman. I'll just come back very
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:48:39
briefly because Andrew had a very interesting slide when he gave the last
presentation to the whole group.
And it's the one that shows the overlay of debt onto the system.
And 3 .4 going across the morden is slightly better from a debt
point of view, but there's nothing to stop us putting a,
you know, we're open to both.
I'm open to a free option.
That's what we're talking about this evening, is a free option.
But there's no reason why we can't drop a,
You have a side note that says, we would like consideration given 3 .2.
I have to say 3 .4 is what's on the table at the present time.
But when it comes down to it, place is place.
Onga will always be your home.
Eppie will always be someone else's home.
Royden will be someone else's home.
Nazing will be someone else's home.
It's the place where you live that counts most of all to you.
And that doesn't go away.
who you pay your council tax bill to to a degree is in the relevance, it's about the
actual place and I think one of the important things to build place is something that the
Government is working on is these local committees and it's how the new authorities build those
into the future because that's how you're going to represent place better
and that's an opportunity where you can bring more people on board to play an
active role in community communications and cohesion in the future.
Thank you Councillor Whitford. Councillor Holly Whitford. Thank you Chairman. I don't
Cllr Louise Mead - 0:50:10
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:50:12
intend to speak for long this evening. I'm sure everyone would be pleased to know. But
I think most people go into local government for the right reasons and they do it for very
local reasons. They do it because they care about the community which they're from. I've
had the privilege of being a County Councillor for the last four years and a District Councillor
for over nine years now and they both have their merits and their flaws.
County council is a huge Titanic.
It's incredibly slow to get anything done.
You feel like screaming and shouting sometimes when the most simple thing like filling a
pothole takes weeks, sometimes months.
So it's a ridiculous system and equally district council you feel like you can get some things
done quickly, other things are too slow.
but actually other things would work much better if there was more partnership and more
joint up thinking.
The thing that comes to my mind the most is my experience in both social care and housing.
I know that Eppin Forest District Council sheltered accommodation is always the area
where we actually struggle to get people into certain units and the county council have
a shortage of independent living.
But we don't talk to each other and there's always seemed to be a madness in that in the lack of communication and actually
Unitaries do solve this and so I am pleased that we are working towards this unitary model
and the last government were working towards it and
This government and council MacGyver said they don't have a mandate. I agree with the
Disagree with the majority of what this government stand for but they do have a mandate was in their manifesto that they would
work towards local government reform and unitarisation. So when I look at this
I'm thinking what is the best for the people of Eppin Forest? What will be the
most financially sustainable which means we can try and keep taxes down as low as
possible? What will drive the best services and what will mean that local
people still have a voice? And for me on balance that is free and I've listened
to The Voice, particularly of social care officers at Essex County Council, who say
that five unitary authorities just doesn't work. It's too much cost, too much complication.
It doesn't work with the current system and actually could end up to the detriment of
the most vulnerable people in our community. That's why on balance I believe that free
is the best. I mean, it's not perfect. We all know that we don't have a close connexion
with Malden or Atlesford for that matter.
But we will be in this chamber if we're elected,
if we choose to stand representing the communities
that we are from and the communities
we've been elected to serve.
It's also important that potentially we'll have,
we'll still have the parish council and town council voices,
but also community committees,
which means the voice of individual towns, villages,
hamlets even, and will be heard.
And that is our job as councillors to do that.
So it's a very balanced decision for me.
Actually, if this is the future of local government,
I think it has many positives.
And as Councillor Whitehouse said, many opportunities.
I also think we need to look at how people are represented
on the council, because if it's going to be all daytime
meetings, I've made this case many times at county,
no offence to the old boys, but we don't want it to be entirely
an old boys club.
We want it to represent all parts of our community,
including working age adults as well.
So just to bring in my comments together,
I think on balance, free is best.
Free is the most financially sustainable.
And I've listened very closely to both Andrew and Owen
in their comments about the finances.
And I think to do the responsible thing
for the people of Epping Forest, to keep taxes low,
but services efficient and reactive,
free is the best solution.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So before we move forward and I ask council Whitford to sum up and is there
Cllr Louise Mead - 0:54:11
anyone else who would like to say anything as part of the debate? Yes.
Thank you madam chair. I think there's been three key words mentioned tonight
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:54:21
it's been financial, cultural and balance and I think it really sums up
everything we do at this council you know with every decision we're always
looking at those those three key words there you know when we're setting
budgets and we're looking you know we would all love to be able to do more but
there has to be balance we have to look at it and say can this be justified
within the budget so while I would happily have a much more responsive
local councils that can really have a positive cultural impact I don't also
want them to all be skinned so it's a balance isn't it you can either have
that on the one hand but it financially doesn't stand up or you could have a
really really positive financial argument.
You know, I would make a really compelling financial case
to just have one emerge the whole districts up with county.
Obviously that's not an option
and no one would really vote for that
as soon as you put a hat on from a cultural perspective.
But you know, from a financial perspective,
there's a case there.
So to me, it's actually just a really simple decision
of finding the mark somewhere in the middle.
You know, if five is more cultural and one is financial,
then free seems like a really logical position to take those free words and find the balance.
So that is what I will be supporting. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Howard Caulfron.
Cllr Louise Mead - 0:55:44
Thank you Madam Chairman. I wasn't really thinking about speaking but I feel I ought
Cllr Howard Kauffman - 0:55:47
to contribute. I feel like I'm going to be a turkey voting for Christmas.
Because I don't like any of it, I know that's not up to debate. I see no connexion between
Epping Forest and Morden, whatsoever.
I can see a 414 link.
We all have the 414.
No weather stops.
I can see the M11 link to Stansted and beyond.
We all know that.
That's our patch.
We think that's our patch.
And we are probably very similar with that much closer to London.
You can't get further from London in Essex pretty much than the Morden.
It's completely different to us, a different population density.
I see no synergy whatsoever.
So where does that go? You know, this is a decision for a wide group of people with different opinions.
I'm not happy about it, what can I do? I don't accept the one councillor for 5 ,000 residents whatsoever,
because that's going to knock out all day job working councillors who will not be able to do this job anymore.
And that's completely anti -democratic. So there are councillors here who do a really good job, who love their job,
who are going to be compulsively retired because they cannot cope with 5 ,000 district members.
So this is a ridiculous thing that we're having to deal with.
I understand the economies of scale.
I'm not saying we can do anything about it.
I don't think the government particularly got it right.
I don't think the last government got it right.
It's a very difficult thing.
The linkage with Morden seems strange.
I don't understand, like Councillor Crisp -Whitburne, the numbers with Uthall -Sford.
what's the problem with Ufferton? Why don't we sit well with them? I don't get it, they
are our neighbours. They may be something that I'm not aware of. So I'm going to be
a turkey and I will vote for Christmas.
Thank you, Councillor Kaufman. Before I ask the leader to talk again, if he wants to,
Cllr Louise Mead - 0:57:38
is there anybody else? Yes, Councillor Brix.
Cllr Rose Brookes - 0:57:47
It's more a question, really, perhaps, to pose and a small comment. I find myself torn
between what's best for Epping Forest and what's best on the numbers and the
pounds and pennies. Because one thing I would like actually, Councillor Whitbread,
because I'm aware you know much more and I did find the briefing we had a couple
of weeks ago extremely helpful, particularly when we looked at the debt
and also hampering certain new authorities with more deprivation,
tendering for instance, the highest number of people on benefits in the
council, Colchester, a lot of poverty and this option that we're looking at
preference tonight, the Blue Strip, looks okay for us but I'm not quite sure
about the other two either side and I do feel what I'd like council Whitbread
because I know you know more much more than me, is just to counteract some of
persuasive arguments of Councillor McIver for that strip down the M11 please.
Councillor Whitby can I just ask you just to stop one moment I just want to tell
Cllr Louise Mead - 0:58:57
there's nobody else that wants to speak and then you can sort of sum up is there
anyone else yes Councillor Nwiki.
Thank you Madam Chair. Just looking at the the different options that have been
Cllr Chidi Nweke - 0:59:08
discussed tonight and I could see that the arguments both sides for five and
three. One thing I'm not quite clear is why aren't we looking at 3 .2 because for
me I think 3 .2 makes more sense if we haven't got much connexion to Malden
which I agreed with why is 3 .2 not considered just want a more of a
Cllr Louise Mead - 0:59:40
to be said to be okay anybody else over to Councillor Whitbridge thank you thank
you thank you chairman and thank you members for a thoughtful debate it's an
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:59:49
indicative vote this evening but it's a really thoughtful debate and very
helpful and I agree with that word balance I think that really is that the
key argument is finding that balance between what feels right for Epping
forest, but what feels right for the future and what will create a sustainable council
for the future that can deliver on what our residents demand, whether that be social care,
children's services, SEND, all that range of issues that we need to be able to fund
in the future.
Really good question about why not 3 .2, why 3 .4?
Well we heard last week when you look at 3 .4 with the debt overlays, 3 .4 is marginally
better but as Councillor Dadd said during her offer this evening you know
why can't we put a note in saying we'd like 3 .2 to be considered as well well I
think we probably can if that's what members you know our direction one but
again it does come down to carrying debt and what I would say at the moment I
think Councillor Calford made a really good point because we are to a degree
turkeys voting for Christmas and I now feel part of the old boys club after I've
been labelled this evening.
And it is important to build councils that
can reflect our community.
I think that's fundamental.
So there does have to be the mix.
And this will come when we get into the implementation phase,
is we need some evening meetings as well as some
daytime meetings.
There's some things you have to do during the daytime.
And some of the professional elements of children's services
and adult social care demand that.
So that's just the nature of the beast.
But, you know, at the moment, unitaries will meet at evenings as well as during daytime.
So I think we can find a happy balance there as well.
But the key piece around, I would say, looking at what Councillor Calfman said, which I think is a really good point.
But just remember at the moment, Essex is the upper tier authority for us.
And when we go to Essex, we could be covering from where we live, but also finding relations with Harwich, Dovercourt, all these different places that we have to work alongside and understand.
The other important factor as we put these new unitaries together, and Councillor Brooks pointed this out really well, is to make sure that you get the right balance of areas of social deprivation as well.
It's a really, it is a really careful balance that we have to
strike all the time.
But that's where I came to in my deliberations,
looking at the evidence, looking at what the balances are,
looking at what I think is best for the long term,
remembering the current system has lasted 51 years.
And people hated it when it came in.
I'm sure if Chris was here this evening, he would be saying,
you know, when this started back in 74, people hated it.
It took years to actually get used to being in Epping Forest.
And people, even when I first came here, would talk about Holy Cross and other areas.
So it takes years for something to grow and become an entity that people recognise.
So it will take time.
You know, this isn't going to be a silver bullet overnight.
But I tell you now, I saw during the pandemic every reason why we had to change.
Because all local government did a brilliant job.
We are blessed with people doing great jobs in local government,
who don't get recognised often enough for the good work that they do.
And we've seen it here locally, haven't we, in recent days.
You know, that great piece of work that gets done in these places.
During that pandemic, we had to pass support money out to businesses
and we had to work with the County Council.
But you realised sometimes we were a bit too small
and the county was a bit too big to be flexible and able to move the speed,
like the comments that Holly Whitborough made earlier.
You know, I always say towns and parishes are speed boats.
Districts, we're a sort of cruise liner.
And the county is a super tanker.
What we'll end up with is an authority that can cope,
that can deliver for residents
and be sustainable into the future.
The last thing I want to see is year on, year out,
that we've seen, finding three million pounds
worth of savings here,
million pounds worth of savings there and seeing what we can provide whittle
away. I want to see local government at its best and that will be done for
unitarisation and I do believe the best way forward is for free but we will take
a vote an indicative vote we will offer each one up all members only have one
vote because the council only has one vote but personally I would be supporting
in the free option this evening.
Okay, thank you.
Cllr Louise Mead - 1:04:40
So councillors, so the chambers preferred option
goes forward to cabinet on Monday the 22nd of September.
My I ask that we have a show of hands
for your preferred option.
So you have one vote each, and these are the options.
So three unitary councils, four unitary councils,
So may I have a show of hands for three unitary councils?
is that hand up councillor Pugsley
29 Chen can we have a show of hands for four unitary councils of the rocheford
Cllr Louise Mead - 1:05:55
version none chairman can we have a show of hands for four unitary councils the
Thurrock version none chairman and finally show of hands for five unitary
Cllr Louise Mead - 1:06:11
councils
11 chairman. So councillors thank you very much for your
Cllr Louise Mead - 1:06:30
contributions and guidance tonight and as you're aware the option which Epping
Forest District Council wishes to support will be decided at the cabinet
meeting be held on Monday the 22nd of September. Sorry chairman can we ask if
Are there any abstentions?
Sorry, are there any abstentions?
No, okay, thank you.
So item five is the exclusion of public and press on our agenda.
As there are no items for consideration at the exclusion of the public and press,
I'd like to take this opportunity to wish you all a very safe journey home,
and I declare that the meeting is closed.
Can we just hold on one moment before everyone starts packing up for a few minutes?
We are now closing the meeting at 8 .13pm.
Cllr Rose Brookes
District councillor for Buckhurst Hill East and Whitebridge ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Rose Brookes
Cllr Mary Dadd
District councillor for Ongar ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Howard Kauffman
District councillor for Loughton St John's ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Howard Kauffman
Cllr Tim Matthews
District councillor for Waltham Abbey South and Rural ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Tim Matthews
Cllr Jaymey McIvor
District councillor for Ongar ward
Independent
View profile Cllr Jaymey McIvor
Cllr Louise Mead
District councillor for Loughton Fairmead ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Louise Mead
Cllr Lisa Morgan
District councillor for Grange Hill ward
Independent
View profile Cllr Lisa Morgan
Cllr Chidi Nweke
District councillor for Loughton Roding ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Chidi Nweke
Andrew Small
Chief Executive (Acting)
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Andrew Small
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 Jon Whitehouse
District councillor for Epping East ward
Liberal Democrats
View profile Cllr Jon Whitehouse
Gary Woodhall
Team Manager - Democratic and Electoral Services
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Gary Woodhall