Interactive webcast player

Cabinet
Monday, 14th September 2026 at 7:00pm

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  3. Cllr Howard Kauffman
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  3. Cllr Darshan Sunger
  4. Cllr Ken Williamson
  5. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  6. Cllr Smruti Patel
  7. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  8. Cllr Kaz Rizvi
  9. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
  1. Public Speaker
  2. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  3. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  4. Public Speaker
  5. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  6. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  7. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  8. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  9. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  10. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  11. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  12. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  13. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  14. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  15. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  16. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Public Speaker
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  3. Public Speaker
  4. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Stephen Murray
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Ken Williamson
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  3. Cllr Ken Williamson
  4. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  3. Cllr Howard Kauffman
  4. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  5. Owen Sparks
  6. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  7. Cllr Stephen Murray
  8. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  9. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  10. Cllr Ken Williamson
  11. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  12. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  13. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  14. Andrew Small
  15. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  16. Andrew Small
  17. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  18. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  19. Andrew Small
  20. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  21. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  22. Andrew Small
  23. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  24. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  25. Cllr Will Kauffman
  26. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  27. Andrew Small
  28. Cllr Will Kauffman
  29. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  30. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  31. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  32. Cllr Will Kauffman
  33. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  34. Cllr Geoff Shaw
  35. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  36. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  37. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Stephen Murray
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  3. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  4. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  5. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  6. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Stephen Murray
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  3. Webcast Finished

1 Webcasting Introduction

Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:00:00
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:00:02
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 MS 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, I don't need to remind you, but when you are speaking, please turn your microphone
on. And when you have finished speaking, please turn your microphone off. Do I have any apologies
for absence this evening?
Yes, Councillor Balcombe has given his apologies later.

2 Apologies for Absence

3 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:00:42
Thank you. Declarations of interest? None. Councillor Whitehouse.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:00:50
Yeah, with the growth of fees and charges, Chairman, I'm an EFDC garage tenant.
Thank you.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:00:58
The Convener is the non -executive director of the College.
Cllr Howard Kauffman - 0:01:01
Thank you.

4 Minutes

Minutes of the last meeting.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:01:06
Can I take those as being correct?
They have been previously circulated, yes.
Thank you.

5 Reports of Portfolio Holders

We then have reports of portfolio holders, if there are any.
Councillor Whitbread.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:01:21
And just a bit of positive news from the economic development team who have been really busy
over the summer.
The tourism guide, which I showed at the last full council, has flown off the shelves and
there's only 200 copies left.
We're looking at producing a new addition, but that's been really popular with local
businesses, local parish and town councils, as well as different community organisations.
The High Street Accelerator Programme is an excellent piece of work.
We're doing a cross -opening forage district to support and help businesses at this really
difficult time with business advice and promotion and it's a scheme that's going really well.
I also wanted to highlight the successful Epping Town Festival, which was run with the
support of Epping Forest District Council as part of some of the prosperity funding
which we received from government. This went really well. It was a two -day mini festival
with community stalls as well as Proms on the Green, which was really well attended.
A particular congratulations to Barbara Scruton, who was the chairman of the Town Centre Partnership
and the other members of the Town Centre Partnership, including Councillor Whitehouse, who did the
difficult financial role, but it was a real success.
And we're having a Wolf and Abby Together event facilitated by the Town Centre Partnership
there on the 1st of October.
There's many more things I could list, but the last thing I just want to highlight is
the Epping Forest Chamber of Commerce Awards,
which is in November.
We're sponsoring the Young Entrepreneur Award.
And if you know any young entrepreneurs locally,
please do encourage them to enter.
Just want to say that Wendy, Matt, Quentin,
and Fabrizio do a real fantastic job,
often under -sung and under -praised.
I want to take a opportunity just to highlight
a small part of their work,
which is really making a difference to local businesses
and the community more broadly.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Soonger.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:03:11
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Darshan Sunger - 0:03:14
I just want to give what I believe is going to be some good news storey for our district.
The government has strengthened its approach to tackling waste crime with the maximum fixed
penalty notice for flight tipping increasing from £1 ,000 to £5 ,000, which is something
that we always wanted to do was to set an example
that if you do this, we will come for you
and we will find you.
While councils will retain discretion to set fines
at an appropriate level locally,
the increased maximum penalty is intended to provide
a much stronger deterrent and better reflect
the environmental damage and harm to local communities
caused by this criminal behaviour.
These changes form part of the government's wider
waste crime action plan, which aims to support councils
in tackling waste crime, more effectively,
protect the local communities and reduce the costs
associated with enforcement and cleanup activity.
Just to give you an example, a recent flight tip
in Mandurah Lane in Chigwa, right outside
of primary school, contained waste that was asbestos,
and that particular flight tip,
in, Councillor Risby was there, I think cost us a ballpoint of about £4 ,000 just to get
disposed of through a special company. So my portfolio holder report to Council in October
will provide further details on these changes and set out how we intend to use the new powers
to strengthen our ongoing campaign against waste crime across Epping Forest. And I would
like, Chairman, also take the opportunity to thank Mandy Thompson and Brian Elick, all
team behind the scenes that do a phenomenal job to set a brilliant example that we will
not tolerate with this zero tolerance policy and that we intend to catch these people that
are associated with this particular criminal activity.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Ken Williamson.
Thank you, Chair.
Yes, another good news storey.
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:05:22
The land charges team has been awarded a gold banner by the land registry for all of the
work they put in the changes they have made. Our thanks to the team and congratulations
to the team. Job well done.
Councillor Patel.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:05:39
Cllr Smruti Patel - 0:05:41
Thank you, Chair. I want to say a huge thank you to the members. I have the opportunity
to attend for those who attended the last consumer standards related housing inspection
briefing that we had. There is another one coming up. Just another reminder, we did have
a really good turnout compared to the first one. So yeah, just another plug to say attend
it as soon as you've got the email and you've got the details and the link on there. Thank
you.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Frisbee.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:06:08
Cllr Kaz Rizvi - 0:06:10
And just to add in an update from my portfolio, we have managed to secure a date in the diary
for our annual EFTC community lottery celebration event that is locked in for the 19th of October.
Really excited. We've got around about a dozen good causes who have already signed up to
attend and will be giving out the annual Good Causes grant on that celebration event as
well. So, yet more good news from my portfolio as well.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:06:42
Thank you very much. Members, we then move on to item five, sorry, item six, which is

6 Public Questions and Requests to Address the Cabinet

public questions and request to address the Cabinet. We start first with public questions
and we have a number this evening. So, if we can go first of all to Selina Jeffcoat
from Chigwell parish Councillor who has some questions for the committee.
Just to note, Chair, I am asking these questions from the members of the public. I am a Conservative
Councillor at Chigwell parish, but I am here as a member of the public this evening.
Thank you very much.
Public Speaker - 0:07:14
Bolisode, Epping Forest District Council, circulated $88 million at the 31st of March
2026. The Council's accounts show the expected credit loss of these loans has increased to
26 .65 million from 5 million the year before. Despite this forecast loss, the Council is
continuing to lend to QALIS. Of the 10 .55 million additional lending to QALIS in 2526
and the 9 .48 million additional lending to QALIS proposed for 2627, what amount does
the Cabinet consider being at risk of non -payment by QALIS?
Thank you. Councillor Hollywood -Bryad.
Thank you, Chairman. I am answering these questions on behalf of Councillor Balcombe,
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:07:58
who cannot be here this evening. An assessment of the loss on Springwood Grove has already
been reported to Scrutiny and Cabinet, which remains under ongoing review. It reflects
the failure and replacement of the original contractor, construction cost increases and
a significant weakening in the market for new build flats. It is not possible or meaningful
to attribute the Council's expected credit loss to individual loan advances. The assessment
relates to the recoverability of Qualys's total debt, taking account of the assets and
anticipated receipts. The latest lending is necessary to complete Springwood Grove. If
the Council did not provide it, the scheme would remain unfinished, could not be sold,
and the substantial expenditure already incurred would be placed at a much greater risk. Completion
enables the development to be sold and allows a substantial part of its construction costs
to be recovered and used to reduce qualities debt to the Council. The further advances
should therefore be viewed as protecting the Council's existing investment and maximising
recovery rather than as a separately identifiable amount that will be written off. The scheme
continues to be managed robustly to ensure effective delivery and ensure value for money
within the context of the specific challenges the project has faced.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:09:25
Public Speaker - 0:09:29
cabinet approved a restructuring of the qualities companies in July 2026,
under which qualities group limited is to be removed from the structure.
Qualis commercials development activity is coming to an end, and its investment properties
that are to be transferred into a separate company.
The report also states that the Council's loan agreements,
currently held by Qualis Group Limited,
will be redrafted directly to Qualis Commercial
as part of a debt rescheduling exercise in 27 -28.
Given that Epping is owed approximately $88 million,
why is that debt proposed to be transferred
to Qualis Commercial when its development activities
are being wound down?
What will the value of the assets remaining
remaining in Qolsky Commercial immediately after the restructuring of Qolsky Commercial,
compared with the value of Epping Forest loans for which it will become liable? What assets
and income will remain in Qolsky Commercial to service and ultimately repay those loans?
What would happen to the debt if Qolsky Commercial itself is subsequently closed or wound up?
Thank you. Councillor Hollywood.
Thank you.
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:10:35
The proposed debt rescheduling exercise has not yet been undertaken, and the detailed
arrangements will be developed and brought forward to cabinet for approval.
However, the purpose is to simplify the group structure, meet the updated requirements of
the Procurement Act 2023, and ensure all financial assets and liabilities are reflected in the
companies that deliver the relevant business activities.
The transfer of loan liabilities does not alter the Council's overall financial position
as a lender, nor does it change the Council's ability as a shareholder to monitor, manage
and recover debt owed by the Qols companies.
Qols Commercial remains active in delivering the core activities and is likely to continue
to do so throughout the 2027 and 2028 financial year.
There remains key variables in the final outcome of projects and wider cash flow will be generated
from the sale of assets to support the ongoing repayment of debt.
The structure will be revisited once the development activity comes to a conclusion and consideration
will be given to how remaining outstanding debt repayments are managed.
Appropriate legal arrangements will be put in place through the Council as sole shareholder
to ensure revenue streams are appropriately committed to meeting the debt servicing liabilities.
At the time of review, it was anticipated that the longer term future of Qualis Commercial
and other local authority trading companies would be considered by the successor unitary
authority as part of the local government reorganisation, and a wider review of asset
ownership and delivery models.
The wider local government landscape has now changed,
and these assumptions may have to be revisited
as future arrangements become clear.
In the context of the above, it is not yet clear
what assets will be within Qolis Commercial
when any loans are transferred,
and this may ultimately not be the preferred option.
The position will be reviewed ahead of any changes
being made and appropriate governance
and member oversight processes followed.
Should the company be restructured, dissolved or wound up at a future date, the treatment
of assets, liabilities and debts would be governed by the relevant loan agreements,
company law, insolvency law where applicable, and any shareholder decisions in place at
that time.
The proposed restructuring does not remove the Council's ability as a shareholder and
lender to oversee the position, nor does it predetermine any future decision regarding
the management or recovery of debt. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Ms Jeffcock. We will be back to you shortly for your other statement.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:13:22
If we can then move on to Simon Heap, who should be online.
No, it doesn't look like it. Okay, well, I will read the first of these questions for
him and then we will put them in writing as a response.
In 2025 -26, EFDC borrowed 10 .55 million from the Public Works Loan Board, which was then
lent to Qualis to pay their ongoing cost of developing Springwood Grove before the Council
borrowed the money, what business case for the project loans and assessment of the ability
of QALYST to repay and the value and enforceability of the security work that was carried out
to establish that borrowing millions of pounds in order to name its QALYST represented a
prudent and proper use of public money.
Councillor Holly Whitbread.
Thank you.
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:14:24
The loans provided to QALYST are considered and approved within the Council's established
governance framework and followed assessment of the financial and commercial position of
both the Springwood Grove development
and the QALYST group's wider business plan.
The Council's decision was informed
by its ongoing oversight of QALYST
through annual business plans,
detailed financial forecasts,
and regular performance monitoring.
Prior to the lending being approved,
the Council considered the implications
of the scheme remaining incomplete,
the cost already incurred,
the prospects for completing and selling the development,
and the impact the completion would have
on recovering expenditure and reducing debt owed to the Council.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And the second question from Simon Heap was,
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:15:09
the Council budget contains a further $9 .48 million
lending to QALYST in 26 -27.
Of that $9 .48 million, how much will be needed to be funded
through PWLB or other third -party borrowing?
Councillor Hollywood -Bryant.
Thank you.
the Council currently undertakes its external borrowing
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:15:31
through the Public Works Loan Board.
The 9 .48 million included within the 2026 to 2027 budget
represents the forecast funding requirements
for QALYST during that year.
The extent to which this will be funded
through additional Public Works loans
will depend on the Council's overall cash position,
capital financing requirements
and treasury management activities
at the time which the funding is required.
All external borrowing is undertaken in accordance with the Council's Treasury management strategy
and prudential indicators.
Thank you.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:16:12
The next question, again, I will read because the question isn't on line this evening.
It's from a J Smith and it starts, quality zones up in forests at least $88 million in
unpaid loans.
What specific security does EFDC hold against each of the individual loans to QALYST?
Please give us part of the answer, the value of those securities, what loans they are set
against and the exact amount and the number of QALYST's outstanding loans on 31 August
2026.
Hepping Forest District Council recently wrote a letter for QALYST companies so they could
remain going concerns.
what is the financial commitment and maximum liability
of this for the council?
And what meetings did all councillors discuss and agree?
Councillor Woodrow.
Thank you.
And there were both questions there.
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:17:07
So the first question is,
the council's lending to Qolis companies
is set out in the treasury management reports
in four principal loan categories,
commercial loans, development loans, asset purchase loans,
and a working capital loan.
All lending is governed by formal loan agreements,
which include provisions relating to security
and the council's right as a lender.
Commercial loans, the commercial loan portfolio
totals 30 million and was used to acquire
free commercial investments properties
held within Qualis Commercial.
These properties provide the principal security
supporting the borrowing and generating ongoing
rental income for the company.
At the most recent valuations, it is estimated
that the disposal of these assets would generate
approximately 22 million.
In this context, the company has no plans to sell the assets
so the loss is unrealized and a balance sheet valuation
issue only.
On the development loans, the development loan facility
has an approved limit of 103 million.
As at quarter one, 2026 to 2027,
46 .642 million was owed to the council.
These loans funded the delivery of a range of residential
and commercial developments undertaken
by Paulus Commercial.
Due to the challenging market conditions experienced
across property development in recent years,
the value of the underlying assets is not currently expected
to match the full value of the borrowing in all cases.
The final position will only become clear once the remaining projects are completed
and all assets have been realised.
Asset purchase loans of 19 .25 million relate to sites transferred by the Council to the
Company for Development purposes in lieu of cash funding.
As at quarter one of 2026 and 2027, 11 .410 million remained outstanding.
The asset purchase loans and development loans have been considered together in assessing
the overall financial position of the development activity and the extent of any residual funding
gap.
The working capital loan is a result revolving facility of up to 6 million that supported
to the establishment and operation
of the QALYST group structure.
The outstanding balance at the 30th of June, 2026,
was 1 .725 million.
Security for this facility is provided
through the assets of QALYST group
and its subsidiary companies.
And on the second question,
QALYST is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Epping Forest District Council.
As sole shareholder, the council has an interest
in ensuring the company can continue to meet its obligations whilst existing development
projects are completed.
The letter provided by the Council does not create a new limited financial commitment
beyond the existing relationships with its wholly owned subsidiary.
Rather, it reflects the Council's intention in its capacity as a shareholder to continue
to work with and support the company in an orderly manner whilst agreed business plans
are delivered. The Council's overall financial exposure to QALYST arises principally from its
existing loan funding, shareholder relationship and contractual arrangements, all of which are
reported through the Council's accounts, annual QALYST business plan and regular cabinet reports.
As sole shareholder, the Council approves the QALYST business plan and oversees the
company's activities through its established governance arrangements.
Thank you.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:21:06
The final questions this evening come from a Mr Yves. The first question being the Council's
corporate risk register identifies the continued financial viability of QALYST as a major financial
and reputational risk to EFDC and states that financial scenario modelling and quarterly
reporting of Council's QALIS -linked risk exposure were to be undertaken. What does
the Council's down side scenario modelling and quarterly report show to be the maximum
risk exposure if QALIS cannot repay the outstanding loans?
Councillor Wiprader.
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:21:42
The Council's exposure to QALIS is reviewed regularly through the annual QALIS business
plan and quarterly financial monitoring. These are reported to Cabinet and assess the
the company's forecast trading position,
cash flow, balance sheet, development programme,
and ability to meet its obligations to the council
as shareholder and lender.
These set out the financial challenges
facing the development activities within QALYST
and the actions being taken
to support the company's financial sustainability.
The reports consider a wide range of scenarios
and potential outcomes as part of the council's
ongoing risk management arrangements.
As at 31 March 2026, the Council accounts included an expected lifetime credit loss
provision of 26 .523 million against QALYST loans balances at 84 .931 million.
This is an accounting assessment of the overall recoverability of the Council's lending
to QALYST, having regard to the value of its assets, anticipated disposal proceeds, future
income and its ability to serve and repay its total debt. This does not, however, represent
the actual amount that may be needed to be written off, which will be dependent on the
completion of the final development schemes and wider financial performance of the QALIS
Group. The position is subject to ongoing review.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:23:13
Thank you. The second question is, given the Council's assessment of the financial risk
associated with QALYST and its continuing programme of further lending, what specific
financial or performance triggers would cause EFDC to stop advancing further money to QALYST
and have any of those triggers already been reached?
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:23:30
In November 2024, the Council, in its capacity as sole shareholder, instructed QALYST to
pursuing new development opportunities,
and instead focus on completing existing commitments.
This decision was taken in response
to the significant commercial challenges
affecting the development market
and was subsequently reflected in a revised business plan
which was approved by cabinet.
The company's current priorities
are the completion and disposal
of its remaining development schemes,
implementation of the agreed business plan,
and management of its financial position.
This now means that the remaining lending required
by the company is largely to deliver the completion
of the Springwood Grove development.
The project has now been subject to review
for the council's existing governance framework.
And while it's expected that the project
will generate a financial loss,
there are no current concerns
regarding its successful completion.
The council continues to monitor the project closely,
but remains clear the completion enables the development
to be sold and allows for a substantial part
of its construction costs to be recovered
and used to reduce Qualis' overall debt to the council.
The further advances are therefore protecting
the council's existing investment and maximising recovery.
The council does not rely on a single predetermined
financial or performance trigger
that would automatically result in the seizing of lending.
Instead, any future lending is considered in the context
of the company's approved business plan,
financial forecast, cash flow requirements,
compliance within the relevant loan agreements,
and the council's assessment of how best
to protect its existing investment.
Importantly, the risks identified relate principally
to the development activities undertaken
through the commercial development business.
By contrast, Qualis Property Solutions continues to operate effectively and quarterly reporting
indicates that it remains broadly in line with budget expectations and continues to
provide high quality services to tenants and the wider community.
Thank you.
Thank you very much and can I thank members of the public for their questions this evening.

7 Overview and Scrutiny

Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:25:51
We now move on to 6b, which is a request to address the Cabinet and these are for three

6 Public Questions and Requests to Address the Cabinet

minutes each and they will be timed. The first speaker is Selina Gifford.
Public Speaker - 0:26:08
Thank you. I am addressing on item 12 the proposal to exclude the public and press from
discussions about the site of Qolis and TVS's quarter one budget reports. This is a legal
decision Cabinet makes tonight under the local government act. The decision does not belong
to the monitoring officer or democratic services. It belongs to the members voting on item 12.
Paragraph 3 of the LGA does not make a report confidential because it concerns financial
matters. Paragraph 10 is the decider. Information is confidential only if, in all the circumstances,
the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
The public interest test is the decisive test and it is mandatory. Not whether the information
is financial, not whether it concerns a company, not whether officers have received any challenges
to their decision. There are lawful and procedural consequences to not following proper process,
but it is also an obvious governance and reputational problem at a time when the Council is already
facing questions about its transparency and the oversight of its companies.
Tonight's agenda highlights the dichotomy. Item 9 is the Council's own quarter one budget
monitoring report. That contains forecasts, borrowing, variances, capital expenditure
and quite properly it's public. Yet, Qualisys and TVSs are not. They are wholly owned council
companies and their quarter one budget monitoring reports directly impact on the council's own
report. In Qualisys' case, despite their debts, the risk and the upcoming loan write -offs,
the council's quarter one budget report shows they are still being lent money and the interest
income from Qualis loans is a key part of the council's own financial planning. The
public interest in everyone understanding Qualisys' current financial position is therefore
exceptionally strong. Previous monitoring reports and discussions on Qolis were public.
As the financial position worsened, the reports became restricted. This is deeply damaging
to public confidence. It is very hard to justify the public interest in withholding the entire
quarterly budget reports of the Council -owned companies. The Council's own wording is
clear. The information is exempt only if and so long as the public interest in secrecy
outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Tonight, members must be satisfied that any alleged harm
caused to Epping, Corliss or TVS by the public
seeing these reviews outweighs the public interest
in opening the doors and understand what harm and to whom.
To ask what can be published and what,
to ask what can be published, not what cannot.
The greater the financial exposure and risk carried
by the public, the stronger the public interest case
for transparency over secrecy.
Thank you very much, Selina.
If we then move on to the second request
to address the Cabinet, is that Charlotte Williams,
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:28:52
and Charlotte, I believe, is on line.
Good evening, can you hear me okay?
We can hear you fine.
Thank you very much.
Public Speaker - 0:29:00
This pertains to Item 7, overview and scrutiny.
I would like Cabinet to support overview and scrutiny
carrying out a proper review of QALIS project by project. A concern was raised by a member
of the public at overview at overview and scrutiny last week that members still don't
have one clear document showing what each QALIS project has actually cost, how it was funded,
what money has come back and what it is still owed. That matters because the council is not
just the owner of QALIS. It has also lent it large sums of money, borrowed money itself to fund that
lending, paid Qualis companies for services, and in some cases, taken assets back from
Qualis. In 25 -26, the Council lent Qualis another
£10 .55 million and borrowed that same amount from the Public Works Loan Board. Qualis owes
£88 million and 30 % of that is not going to be paid back. With some like that involved,
members should be able to see the full picture for each project. Cottes Lane is a good example.
When the council took the car park back, £19 .396 million of quality debt was cancelled, but
no cash came back to the council.
Epping Forest still has £9 million worth of owned borrowing to repay, and the car park
was immediately valued at over £15 million less than the debt that had been cancelled.
That is why members need to be clear about the difference between getting cash back and
simply reducing a loan by taking an asset instead.
The same questions now need to be answered before the proposed £19 .65 million purchase
of Springwood Grove goes ahead.
Members should be told what the project is costing total, how much Epping Forest District
Council has already lent towards it, how much cash Qualis will actually receive, what debt
will be repaid or cancelled and what council borrowing will still remain afterwards.
This should be basic financial scrutiny.
For each QALYST project, members should be shown the total cost, borrowing, interest,
money received from sales or rent, cash repayments, asset transfers and the final gain or loss
to the Council as a whole.
I would also ask overview and scrutiny to look at the new arrangements between QALYST
and TBS.
If the two companies are going to work more closely together, members need to be sure
there is still clear responsibility, proper oversight and independent challenge.
I am therefore asking Cabinet to support adding this work to the overview and scrutiny programme.
Scrutiny is most useful before more public money is committed, not after the event.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Ms Williams.
We then move on to Mr Frank Williams.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:31:55
Thank you for your patience, Members.
This is on item 10, the risk register.
The purpose of this item is to ask whether the Council's risks are being properly recorded
and whether the new risks that need to be added.
I would ask members to look closely at item FIN 002 in the risk register, QALYST.
The register already says that failing to keep QALYST financially viable is a major
financial and reputational risk to the Council.
But the description does not reflect what we now know.
Around £88 million is still owed by QALYST.
The Council has recognised an expected loss of £26 .5 million on that lending.
Arling Close has assessed £22 .5 million as unlikely to be repaid.
The external auditor has also referred to the plans to write off around £16 million
of QALYST debt in 2728. This would mean around $960 ,000 less interest income for the Council
year.
I then believe there is a further part to this statement. I would like to clarify. And
despite all of that, tonight's Budget report includes another $9 .48 million of lending
to QALYST. There are no longer just risks which might happen Monday, those losses are
already being calculated and built into the Council's financial plans. Yet those figures
are not set out in the QALYST risk before Cabinet tonight.
The Register also does not clearly explain what happens to Council services, reserves
and cash flow if QALYST cannot repay what is expected, while EFDC still has to repay
its own borrowing. There is a reputational risk too. Residents will recently ask how
more than $120 million could be lent to the Council's own company, with further lending
continuing, while such a large possible loss is not clearly shown in the Council's main
risk register. There is also the changing relationship between COLIS and TVS. Closer
work in the shared services may save money, but the Council also needs to make sure financial
or governance problems in one company do not spread to the other, and that responsibility
remains clear. So I would ask Cabinet not simply to approve the risk register unchanged.
FIN 002 should reflect the real position.
The amount outstanding, expected losses, possible write -offs, further lending and the effect
on council income.
A risk register should tell where the council may be hurt next, not simply describe the
problem after the damage has been done.
And then a final part added to this afterwards.
I'd like to clarify that any figures, details or transactions quoted from PI locally available
data such as the most recent accounts, audit reports and reports to Councillors, if Councillors
want links to any, they can be provided.
Mr F Williams.
So those are the three statements.
Again, thank you for the residents for those statements.
I'm sure they will be part of the debate as we move through the evening.
Members, therefore moving on to Item 7, Overview and Scrutiny.

7 Overview and Scrutiny

I note the Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny is missing this evening.
Last meeting, Councillor Murray kindly gave us an update.
Would any members like to give me a quick update on Overview and Scrutiny from the other evening
without too much detail?
Because at the moment some of us were present on the evening.
I can say a few things.
Thank you, Councillor Murray.
I do apologise for not being there in person, but you can go and listen.
Yeah, it was an interesting meeting. Obviously, we touched on the Qantas issue.
Cllr Stephen Murray - 0:36:23
I won't rehearse that because some of the issues have been covered in the earlier part of your meeting
and you can be brought up at subsequent items, but that was an important part of the meeting.
One of the early focuses of the meeting,
and I think across the chamber, or across the groups,
it was very well considered,
was the very impressive presentation that we had from the AEF.
And I can't speak on behalf of RNS,
and I don't know exactly what the minute will say,
but I'm fairly sure all of us at RNS
felt that that was extraordinary.
and paying for money for the 30 ,000 per year.
I'm doing this for members, so I'm trying to think.
I don't think the community assets went to O &S.
It went to close and had a good look.
We were told in O &S and it was confirmed,
and this is an income to money,
turned to the work programme.
Again, it's not going to O &S, but it's going to close.
We certainly has got tangible to come in on the 7 -0
So that's what I can remember and I'm not trying to score a point here but I do think
perhaps a gentle reminder needs to go and it can come from me, a gentle reminder needs
to go to the Chairman of O &S that part of the role of the responsibility is that he
presents a report to Cappen and as you say this is the second time he hasn't been present.
Thank you Councillor Murray and thank you for your very succinct report and covering
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:37:58
all the points that happened the other evening. So that's very helpful. Members, we then move

8 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) update to the Draft Charging Schedule

on to item 8, the Community Infrastructure Levy. That will be Councillor Williamson.
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:38:12
Thank you, Chair. This is coming back to Cabinet to consider and agree the proposed updates
to the draught charging schedule and asking for a further round of consultation in autumn
in 2026. We originally went out to consultation and had 28 responses. All of those responses
have been looked at in great detail, and the revised schedule takes those comments into
account. I'm hoping everybody has actually read through all of the papers and the draught
schedule, which I think aligns with virtually everything we've heard this evening and on
many occasions about Qalis.
Qalis are not in a unique position.
This is across the whole industry.
I think all of these discussions are taking place
in every development company in the land.
I remember saying losses, they're not actually losses.
We still have the land.
It still sits exactly where it was.
And one day we'll be back to its old value and more.
The charging schedule has come down dramatically
And it's because of all of those issues, the wars, the cost of building, COVID, every
impact we've had has not the stuffing out of development. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much, Councillor Williamson. Members of the Cabinet, any questions? No?
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:39:39
Other members? Okay. I mean, I think this is an essential thing for us to do.
Councillor Williamson, are you happy to put the recommendations?
Yes, thank you.
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:39:53
The recommendation is listed in the agenda and is that the cabinet citizen agrees to
propose updates to the draught charging schedule and that these changes will be subject to
a further round of consultation in autumn 26.
Okay.
Members, can we take those as being agreed?
Thank you very much.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:40:10
We then move on to item 9, which is the budget monitoring report.
Councillor Hollywood -Brad.

9 Budget Monitoring Report - 2026/27 Quarter 1

Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:40:19
Thank you, Chairman. This report came to overview and scrutiny last week and it was good to
see members looking at the report in detail. This is for the period April to June 2026,
so the period just passed. And the overall position of the General Fund and the HRA is
positive. In terms of the General Fund, we are looking at a forecast of £150 ,000. We
We have seen some positive performance, particularly in planning income, which is good news.
We have pressures.
Every meeting, I talk about the pressures around homelessness, but this continues to
be a persistent issue.
The cost of covering accommodation costs is rising.
Members will be aware that that falls on the general fund rather than the HRA.
We are looking at a £360 ,000 overspend showing the level of demand.
action is being taken which will hopefully be reflected in later budget reports to tackle
this and to find solutions to temporary accommodation in terms of our own accommodation.
Our reserves are in a strong position.
We have the four million as recommended.
We do have to consider some of the other potential economic uncertainty and some of the issues
which may affect a future budget going forward.
It is also worth noting that the future budget, which we will reflect on the quarter one report
to help shape, will need to change and be looked at in the guise that local government
reform is paused and isn't happening now as anticipated.
So we will have to look at transformation in a new way and how we move the organisation
forward.
We are looking at having to make 1 .5 million of savings this year.
We have many difficult decisions to make.
But there are a number of difficult decisions
that we will have to make and look at.
I would like to say in relation to the budget,
thank you to those who have come to the budget working group.
It has been really productive so far,
and we will be looking at more substantial decision -making
in the weeks to come.
And that has been cross -party other than one party,
but I would encourage all members from across the Chamber to attend,
and particularly looking at the long -term pressures we face
now that local government reform isn't going ahead. Thank you.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:42:36
Thank you very much. And of course, a detailed report was given to overview and scrutiny.
Members, any questions from the Cabinet? No? Okay. Councillor Coughlin.
Cllr Howard Kauffman - 0:42:47
Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to Councillor Whitfield, very helpful. Just really an
interesting question. I think the situation with temporary accommodation and homeless is only going
in one direction. So are we entitled to any government funding? Are there any discussions?
Do we get any external help? Because for this all to land on our doorstep is obviously patently
unfair. We are very close to London and we are going to suffer more than most and we
haven't got the budget to stand it.
Thank you.
Councillor Whitby.
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:43:19
Thank you, Councillor Kaufman, for that question. We do get some additional funding from government.
I don't have the exact figure to hand,
but it's unfortunately not enough to cover the pressures
that we are facing.
I'm the sponsor on the temporary accommodation group,
which met last week, and they are making progress
in terms of finding other types of temporary accommodation.
So we're looking at some more pod accommodation
for single homeless people,
as well as potentially looking at buying up
some council housing of those larger homes,
because what we are finding more and more
is that families are becoming homeless.
And then later on, when hopefully the problem
subsides a little bit, they will go into the general stock.
So we are looking at ways that we can tackle it through the HRA and take pressure off the
general funds there.
But the government do give us some funding but unfortunately not enough.
I don't know if Owen knows the figures off the top of his head.
Thank you.
I don't, but just to say the government has given us a little bit more recently following
the Prime Minister's announcement.
Owen Sparks - 0:44:12
But again, it is nowhere near meeting our increasing demand, so it is long -going pressure
for us.
We are looking at modelling that in the future and those mitigations as Council will be set
out.
Thank you very much.
Councillor MURRAY.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:44:28
A few points.
Cllr Stephen Murray - 0:44:32
Just picking up on the point that was made, I do accept, given our general fund budgetary
position, there is an argument to look for alternatives in kind of homelessness that
will put some of the cost onto the HRA,
but equally there's a balance in that approach as well.
I don't think it's reasonable for the HRA account
to pick up the lines, line share of homelessness.
You know, there is a reason why
that's a general fund expenditure,
because the general fund is more or less paid in for
by the wider community, by the HRA.
is an account that only a small percentage
of the epi -choice population are involved in.
I do accept it's a question of balance,
but I've been looking at that balance very carefully.
I'm not going to rehearse the arguments
that we've heard tonight through questions and statements
as regards to QANIS.
We probably have a debate when the Cabinet wants to discuss
moving into part two.
But I just wanted to put on record my concern.
And as all as all as is already widely known,
I've probably got a year and a half left on the FTC.
My term of office comes to an end in May 28th.
And I won't be standing again.
I will. I will look very, very carefully at quality
seen at last year and a half.
And I can only speak as an independent, as a sole independent.
then I certainly won't be party to writing off any of the equality steps. I just can't
be rigid to me supporting that. The other specific question I wanted to ask, I think,
is for Councillor Williamson, and I didn't know whether to bring it up on the last item
or to bring it up on this item within this budget. Community infrastructure delivery.
A considerable sample has been earmarked for quite some time for improvements on the
Roly Valley.
That was from a really good development within Knowlton.
And we really had to push every step of the way for the expenditure for that money.
And I want to bore people with the status of Nowridge.
Councillor Williamson will be very clear where we are and what status we've reached.
But when do we actually think we're going to have the first spade or the first piece
of work?
It's not building, I don't want to get people worried, but because we're talking about the
Rowing Valley and footpaths and so on, you might involve a spade.
When are we actually going to get the first piece of work done on site to enhance the
Rowing Valley as regards the draught plan?
Which I don't think we've even gone out to public consultation on yet.
It's like drawing teeth.
That's the view of many of our Councillors.
Thank you, Councillor Murray.
Can I start with Councillor Whitford, then go to Councillor Williamson.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:47:37
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:47:40
Thank you, Councillor Murray, and noted comments on Qualis.
I'm sure that will be part of a later debate.
In relation to the HRA, he's absolutely right.
It is a balance, and actually it is important that if funding is from the HRA, there's
to the HRRA as well, but that is a balanced decision there.
And we'll be sorry to lose him from scrutiny
wherever I sit in the chamber,
because yours does such an excellent job and a fair job.
Thank you.
Thanks very much.
Councillor Williamson.
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:48:11
Thank you, Councillor Murray, for your question.
Yeah, the Councillors in Buckhurst Hill
feel exactly the same.
I haven't got a timetable.
I will ask officers for that timetable,
and I can assure you on day one,
I'll be down there with a spade as well.
I've got no definite dates, but I will press for it and let you know the outcome.
Thank you.
Roberts Thank you.
Councillor Whiskin.
Councillor Whiskin Thank you, Chairman.
I've got two main questions.
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:48:39
Do you want them one after the other?
Roberts Yes, please.
Councillor Whiskin The first one is regarding, I was on a group
which discussed on the path to local government reform about the openness and transparency
of our latcos.
Part of that discussion was quite clear that there were costs associated with both of our
latcos – that's quite a same, TVS – which were being borne by Epping Forest District
Council.
My question is that now that LGR is off the agenda, is this openness going to continue,
which I sincerely hope it will, given what we have heard tonight from various speakers.
There is a strong demand for openness about the failing LATCO, but my issue is slightly
more detailed, the TVS figures which are nice and glowing, showing a profit for the future
year, do they currently include some of those costs which should be borne by the LATCO which
are currently being borne by the Epping Forest District Council?
I am talking about – so this specifically was mentioned leasing costs of vehicles.
Secondly, regarding QALYS, the costs of the Oakwood Hills depot.
That is my question.
Thank you.
Does Mr Small want to comment?
Councillor Harley -Webbray.
Thank you.
I will pass to Mr Small.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:50:21
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:50:24
Just in terms of the local government review that we were doing, I was also part of that
group.
I think that transparency very much continues.
It should be said that QALYST has as a standalone item been to either scrutiny, cabinet, council
54 times.
So there has been a huge amount of openness and transparency and scrutiny around QALYST
over recent years, and that's something that's really important and must continue, and it's
important that we have that transparency.
That's why the figures are within the budget document.
But obviously, in light of local government reform, we have to look at things in a slightly
different lens.
So I'm sure there will be an opportunity to look at the work.
But some of those recommendations are already being put in place,
as he will be aware in terms of the structure, in particular of what it is.
I will pass to Mr Small in relation to the cost of the vehicles.
Thank you.
Mr Small.
Thank you.
Andrew Small - 0:51:15
I suppose the point I wanted to make was, of course, that TVS in particular,
and largely Corliss as well, they only have one client,
one customer on their books, the council contracts with them to provide TVS services.
So everything that TVS spends is paid for by the council.
There is a single contract and therefore all of that expenditure is met by the council
one way or the other.
If whatever TVS spends, the council pays for in the form of a contract sum.
If something isn't charged to TBS, then the Council picks it up.
If it were charged to TBS, then the Council would then have to pay TBS for that cost,
because all of TBS's expenditure is met only by the Council.
And that's the relationship between a single entity with a single client.
There is no external income to pay for it, which is why the Council needs to look at
with – needs to scrutinise the costs of QALYST and TVS with the same level of detail
that it does its own expenditure.
Thank you.
I'll come back on that.
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:52:42
The point is that we should be displaying the true cost of running those businesses.
If costs are being mopped up by the district council,
it shows the entities in a better light
than they actually are financially.
And specifically, some of the conversations we had
at the working group, looking at the latcos going forward
for LGR was that they were being positioned
as competitive organisations to go to other local authorities
in whatever guise there would be or other to provide services to third parties. So we
would not be the only customer for…
Yeah, thank you. Mr Small.
I think there was a conversation about what's the right method for charging for certain
Andrew Small - 0:53:30
assets such as vehicles, for example. And I think the conclusion was that they should
sit with the organisation that's ultimately using them. So I think whilst the original
charge arrangement might have been slightly different, I think we've moved to an arrangement
whereby the costs are charged to the organisation that is using or benefiting from those assets.
But I think the point I was making is, other than if we were wishing to charge or compete
with outside clients, the cost is still going to be picked up by all of the taxpayers one
way or the other, really.
And it will all sit within a waste budget, for example, a single cost centre that is
the total cost of providing waste services.
Part of that is a contract sum to TVS, but the bit that's not charged still sits within
the same cost centre.
So if you're looking at the cost centre for waste collection services, for example, you've
still got the totality of how much it's costing the council to provide waste services.
It becomes relevant, and you're quite right in this regard, if you're trying to compete
with other companies for the provision of those services, then it is exceptionally important
that we understand that cost.
But we have moved to that basis, as you've described anyway.
Thank you.
Councillor Whitehouse.
Thanks, Chair.
I've got some detailed things I think I've separately.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:54:50
But I wanted to ask about the government reorganisation budget mentioned 2 .17, which basically says
there's no net effect to the budget, which might be a bit of a surprise, you know, given
the government's announcement the other day.
I mean, is that because we basically already committed to a lot of expenditure on some
project staff and so forth, which is difficult to unwind?
Are there sort of financial decisions that we might have been able to defer because of
the expectation of LGR that we're now going to revisit?
And I wondered how much of £900 ,000 that we were so promised from the government, is
that money still available, how much of that has been spent?
I will pass to Mr Swanam. The money from the Government, the Government promised us
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:55:49
£900 ,000 for each of the five proposed unitary authorities. We have already raised and are
raising what proportion that they are still going to pay, because whilst it was abortive
work, they should be responsible for some of that abortive work. I have to say, officers
spent an awful lot of time working to make sure we would have been ready, and it is the
Government's choice to put on hold. I was never a person in favour of five. I thought
five was too many. I thought three was the right number. But we went ahead and did what
the Government directed us to do, but of course we are now seeking compensation from them
for some of the costs.
Mr Small.
If you'll indulge me for a little bit. It's been the subject quite close to my heart,
and as I spent an awful lot of time working on it for the last two years, and there are
Andrew Small - 0:56:33
a couple of considerations. One is the cost, as you rightly raised, that we've already
expended in carrying out government's wishes. I think a lot of the resources that we've
used have been internal resources, for which there is, of course, an opportunity cost,
because it hasn't been focused on delivering some of the council services or council transformation
that we would like to have done.
But in terms of out -of -pocket expenses, there has been some, I would anticipate, probably
in the order of a couple of hundred thousand if we are looking at just Epping Forest District
Council costs, but we need to do an exercise to reconcile and put a final number on that.
As the Leader says, the Government originally offered each locality £900 ,000.
The Government has gone away to think about how much of that it is actually going to give
at this point in time, which I think is extremely disappointing because, as I just mentioned,
all the work we have done was because the Government asked us to do that work and we
did it in good faith in response to their request.
So for them to reconsider whether they are going to give us that money or any or some
of that money I think is unfair personally and we are lobbying through civil servants,
through ministers to make sure they do fully compensate the council for the amount of,
certainly out of pocket, ideally they should compensate us for the opportunity cost as
well.
Talking about opportunity cost and in relation to the budget generally, and this will play
through into our wider budget -setting conversations, one of the first things that we did when the
told us that local government reorganisation was going to take place, and Epping Forest
District Council wouldn't exist in two years, is we stopped a lot of the transformation
work that we needed to be doing to deliver a budget savings to balance the Council's
medium -term financial planning to the future.
So there was no point doing transformation work with a five -year payback with only two
years' worth left of life for the Council.
particularly if, for example, it meant investing in a new system or software that we weren't
sure that the new unitary council would want to use.
So in effect, what's happened is that we've put on the back burner all of our transformation
work for the last two years, and now with the government's decision to pause, we find
ourselves on the cusp of setting a budget for 26, 27, with no savings in the bank.
So, a transformation programme takes up to a couple of years to get running and keep rolling.
And we haven't got that.
We've got to start from scratch again.
And that leaves – certainly, it worries me in terms of presenting or delivering future
financial security for the Council when we haven't got the savings or initiatives to
draw upon.
And I think that's something that will feature quite heavily as part of budget setting for
and medium -term financial plan years thereafter. And I think that will be a large part of the
conversation and may in turn drive a lot of the conversations and decisions that Council
might be asked to consider.
Thank you.
Councillor Whitehouse, did you have anything further to ask at this stage? No?
Councillor Whiskin.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:59:53
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:59:59
Thank you, Chairman. My second point was buried in some of the papers. I can't believe which
specific page it's on. It mentions that the gypsy mead development has now been scaled
back to six units, not nine units. I wondered what the impact on the budget was and what
we're going to pay for them, given that it was originally £2 .6 million.
Thank you.
And can I carry on?
Yeah.
So I'm still going.
They are, of course, being purchased by the housing.
Those units were being purchased by the housing revenue account.
Andrew Small - 1:00:34
I think the ones that have been foregone were shared ownership units, which the Council
doesn't have the structure to provide shared ownership schemes.
So I think the six that are still being purchased were affordable housing for rent and being
purchased by the housing revenue account.
So in terms of the general fund, no implications as such.
In terms of the Hazen Review account, less expenditure, but equally fewer units being
provided for rent into the future.
Thank you.
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 1:01:09
My point was, was we're not still paying the same amount of money for the six units
as we were paying for the nine units.
And as a consideration, I wondered if we're rightly going to get involved with buying
up partially developed sites.
Perhaps you can consider a site in Loughton, which is near the Esso garage on Churchill,
which is undeveloped and unfinished, and it's got much more sustainable links to
than perhaps some of the other development sites which might be in focus.
Thank you, Councillor Whiskin.
You're highlighting the problems of the housing market at the present time.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:01:38
At this stage, we'd need to come back to you on that anyway.
But it is interesting that you raised that point, because there are many sites around
which remain uncompleted.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:02:00
Maybe that might be a value that we have lost that we could add to our potential claim.
There must be consents that we have granted that are going sideways.
I just wonder if anyone has thought about that.
Thank you.
Good point.
Mr Small.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:02:34
Andrew Small - 1:02:37
Well, I think it is – I think we have to go back and consider just how far -reaching
the impacts of local government reorganisation were for this Council.
all of our ability to invest, to regenerate, everything had a two -year window of opportunity,
So, if – and we consider that the government would have introduced what was Section 24
legislation, which was that effective – you can't make any financial decisions by yourself
beyond a certain point in time, which might have a financial impact for the new unitary.
So, for us, effectively, that section 24 date, which should have been around May next year,
was our stop date.
So if you couldn't deliver an investment or a new initiative contractually committed by
May 2020 -2027, there was no point doing it for us as an organisation.
So a lot of what we would have been looking to do, I think, through the administration
in terms of new initiatives, new development, new regeneration, has been put on ice because
of that local government decision. And it has come at a cost in terms of not just, well,
I mean, at some level, I suppose, we haven't expended that money, but on the other hand,
we haven't been doing what probably we're here for as a council, which is making Epping
Forest District a better place throughout.
Yeah, thank you. Councillor Coughlin.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:04:07
I was just going to expand further on that point that the centre of my ward is what people
know as two things, either Princess Wales or the Clydesdale, which was coming forward
as a very significant scheme.
That would have probably been almost a sea change point within the ward.
I mean, I didn't support the application at the time, but it would be a good step.
Obviously, the run -in to doing that development is going to be a good couple of years, again,
to go back to that point.
We have put things on ice.
The building has now been put beyond any source of repair,
the amount of damage that's been done to it.
It sort of makes me wonder, you know, do we have any,
is there any scope within our own thinking?
Maybe this is for closed session of how we will go about
redeveloping the schemes that which we are now
going to have to do.
Either we are gonna have to redevelop them
or do we go back into the market,
get a planning consent and sell them on the open market? There are so many questions,
but I suppose how many times can we all be bashed on the head by this Government, not
to score points?
Real helpful questions, Will, thank you. I am sure we will take the floor.
Councillor Hollywood -Bryde.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:05:16
Thank you, Chairman, and they are really helpful questions. What I would say is if they are
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 1:05:20
HRA schemes, I think we would very much be looking to keep them within the Epping Forest
housing stock for local people. Actually, Councillor Whiskin's point was a really important
It is a bit of a different case taking over a half -finished development.
When you have got new developments, actually, Eppin Forest having that share of affordable
housing actually benefits local people more because you have to have lived in Eppin Forest
for seven years to live in an Eppin Forest Council house.
So actually, in terms of social housing, we are much better to have it within the HRA
to benefit local people first, other than give it to a housing association who might
give it to people from outside the area, who might look at shared ownership rather than
that kind of more affordable housing support,
not that there's anything wrong with shared ownership,
but actually having that stock here for local people
is a benefit.
But I think Councillor Coffman makes a really good point
in terms of those wider costs
and what kind of case we could potentially make.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Will, I'll let you come back one more.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:06:17
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:06:19
Councillor Coffman, did you want to come back?
It was just going to be an expense,
so maybe don't have it as a housing scheme.
It would actually go as market housing,
and then that would go in to help run our surplus down.
I'm sure we'll be looking at all these type of things as we move forward.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:06:34
Councillor Shaw.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Cllr Geoff Shaw - 1:06:39
I believe the Cabinet, you're correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Cabinet have
been responsible for the appointment of the Directors of Qalis over the years.
And there are a number of directors that have been with Qalis now since 2020
and have been there continuously during every year at every year's losses
and every year as the business plans have changed.
Is it not appropriate now for the Cabinet to reconsider the position of those directors
and to consider whether they're appropriate for taking the business forward?
as you've just said, I think commercial is going to be carrying on winding itself down
for at least another two years.
And really, we need some professional people there with experience of the waste management
business and the property maintenance business, because I think there are two or three directors
there that have been there all the time that don't have previous experience of the waste
management or housing maintenance?
Thank you, Councillor Shaw. Before I let Councillor Whitby come back, it is not really appropriate
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:07:52
for this session to answer that question. This is about the finances of the Council
and Quarter 1's performance, not to do it in the makeup of the Board of TVS or the Board
of Qualys. I have to say to you, the Board of TVS and the Board of Qualys do have very
qualified people for the roles that they are taking on. But Councillor Whitby, did you
want to come back?
Thank you, Chairman, just to say that it is not really relevant to the quarter one budget
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 1:08:14
monitoring report, but I would say that boards are only a mixture of different skills, abilities
and different people bring different experiences and skills to those boards.
There are experienced people within the Qualis and the TVS board and we have seen in TVS
particularly the success of those individuals.
I know Councillor Shaw has development experience, a detriment of many people in my boarding
and maybe he would have looked to apply. Thank you.
Thank you, members. We have got recommendations before us this evening on quarter one. I don't
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:08:48
think there is anything more to be achieved in this particular debate. We just know there
is lots of work to be done with regards to dealing with the government's decision not
to proceed with LGR at this time, but also with regards to the challenging budget gap
that we already have, and of course the progress this year where we have currently got a slight
underspend, but lots of work to do. Members, can we take the recommendations as noted and agreed?

10 Risk report

Thank you very much. We then move on to item 10, which is the risk report, pages 67 to 75.
Councillor Holly Whitford. Thank you, Chairman. This is the risk report,
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 1:09:24
which was also presented at overview and scrutiny last week, so hopefully members have had a good
chance to have a look at it. The updated risk report shows a number of key changes.
We see an increase in the risk for the quality of major planning applications.
Obviously, that has increased in light of the government's intervention, and it's gone
from 15 to 20 in terms of that risk rating.
It should be noted that it was previously slightly downgraded because we were consistently
and are consistently achieving fewer than 10 % of applications, not within that requirement
set by government, so that's hopefully something that we can move out of very soon.
In terms of community cohesion, that has also been downgraded.
I would say that we still feel significant levels of community cohesion challenges, particularly
in Epping, as a result of the Bell Hotel and the surrounding issues of that, but that has
been downgraded following the closure of the Bell Hotel.
We have got higher ratings reduced for the college challenges as a result of the work
that has been put in place, which is now being implemented in terms of that group structure
and that group review.
As highlighted previously, homelessness continues to be a key risk, and LGR, as the point of
writing this report, was seen as a key risk and challenge, but obviously that will be
re -evaluated in future reports given its current status.
Thank you.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:10:58
Thank you. Members, any questions on the risk record? Are we happy? Okay. I'm going to take

11 Any Other Business

that as being agreed in that case. There was – oh, sorry, Councillor Murray. My apologies.

10 Risk report

I'm just a little bit surprised, and it's a comment on the Cabinet and I'm talking
Cllr Stephen Murray - 1:11:19
I'm just a little bit surprised that when the Cabinet just heard the statement that
we heard from a member of the public, I think it was from one of the Williams, I don't know
them, I'm just remembering who made the statement.
There was a three minute statement as regards to this register.
So I'm just a little bit surprised that no member of the Cabinet actually either of us
the portfolio holder or the relevant officer,
and I would do if I was there.
So I'm asking it virtually.
We obviously heard that statement.
I wouldn't pretend to be able to repeat the detail of it,
but I think it references our own term.
Are we happy having heard what we heard
from the members of the public,
that our risk register adequately reflects
the risk and queries?
And I am surprised that question hasn't come
from a member of the Cabinet, to be honest.
So I'm asking you.
Thank you.
It probably hasn't come from a member of the Cabinet.
Councillor Murray, you make a good point
that it should have been raised,
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:12:24
but members of the Cabinet have gone through this previously
in detail at our pre -executive briefings,
and we've gone through it as portfolio holders as well
to look at the risk in various areas.
So it's something that we pay close attention to
at all times.
In fact, if at the last Cabinet meeting
and we did discuss the risk register,
and we felt that the changes in QALYST
were working through at that time,
and they would be reducing the risk to amber
on QALYST at that point.
But, Councillor Holly Whitborough,
do you want to make any further comment?
Thank you, Councillor Murray,
and it's also worth highlighting
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 1:13:01
that this report recently went to audit
and was looked at by our external auditors.
We're constantly keeping this under review
and ensuring that the level of risk
is appropriately considered.
As stated, it was moved to Amber
due to the group company recommendations,
and we are confident,
and previous committees have been confident
it reflects the seriousness at this time.
Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Whitehouse.
Yeah, perhaps as this colleague mentioned,
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:13:29
the Audit Committee, yeah, I mean,
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 1:13:31
we looked at this at the last Audit Committee meeting
and noted there were more changes in this risk register
than to some other times we looked at it,
including a new risk which has leapt in straight to red.
It's one of those risks which has been carried
in a service risk register,
and perhaps an ideal world,
it's sort of stepping to the corporate risk register,
but it's a sort of risk that's crystallised
more recently, if you like.
On the whole QALYST issue, I think it is important that it is really about how the risks are
managed as opposed to whether the risk exists or not.
I mean the point with the level of debt is it is something that is on the radar of the
external auditors, it is something that is on the radar of the audit committee, it is
something that appears in the group accounts
and the medium term financial plans.
So I mean provisions are being made for the fact
there will be substantial write -offs,
which is clearly not desirable,
but it's important the council has a plan to deal
with these as they come through.
And on the partner management item,
item which is a slightly oddly titled risk
which relates to the subsidiary companies.
I mean the issue there is that there are proposals
to make changes to the governments.
I don't think they fully work for,
certainly the audit committee,
we heard they hadn't fully worked for at that stage,
but we will be coming back to that in the new year
when they will have made further progress
Hopefully, more of that work will be carried out.
Thank you, Councillor Whitehouse.
That is really helpful to give a full update from audit as well.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:15:31
Members, can we agree with the recommendations on that report?
Thank you very much.

11 Any Other Business

We then move on to any other business and the request to take as there is no any other
business.
We go on to item 12, the exclusion of public and press.

12 Exclusion of Public and Press

Can I just repeat to all members, this is never a decision taken easily and in fact
is always explored fully when we do our pre -Cabinet meetings as to whether an item should be in
private session. Each of these items have commercial sensitivity to them, and that is
why we will be asking to move into private session.
So I will read out the usual paragraph in order to get members' permission to go into
private session to consider whether under section 100A 4 of the Local Government Act
1972 the public and press should be excluded from the meeting for the items of business
set out below, on the grounds that 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 100A2.
Members, you know the reasons why we need to go into private session on these items.
Can I take that as being agreed?
Sorry?
The public still...
She needs to come up.
Okay, we'll shut... Yep.
Councillor Murray, you wanted to speak?
Cllr Stephen Murray - 1:17:04
Yeah, I just want to put on record that again, if I was in the Chamber and you do know that,
and obviously I wouldn't have a vote, I understand that.
I would be urging the cabinet to take as much of this
in public as possible.
We heard very persuasive arguments
from one of the recent kids today,
Serena, who I don't know,
I vote to have been a parish councillor,
she wasn't speaking as a parish councillor,
so you make that very clear.
but I thought she put a very reasoned argument for why a lot of this should be an impacted
session and I would be making that point if I was there, so I'm making this point before
you move into parks and the Chairman.
Thank you, Councillor Murray.
Councillor Murray, let me give that assurance again that I gave before.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:17:58
We do everything we can to keep things in public session.
That is something that this Council prides itself in.
There are things that can be commercially sensitive, particularly with regards to LACOs
that you can't be in public session for.
But let me just express again the comment made by Councillor Hollywoodbred earlier on
with regards to Qualis and Qualis's scrutiny.
Since 2019, it has been to 54 different committees, whether that be overview and scrutiny, cabinet
and full Council.
In addition to that, there have been regular questions at full Council about QALYST.
There has also been regular mentions in reports.
So we have done everything we possibly can to make sure that everything that can be said
publicly is said publicly, and of course, we are fully accountable through the auditors
and everything else that we have to do.
So actually, we have been as transparent as possible, and I think that holds this Council
in good stead. But the decision this evening is these reports need to be heard in private
and I would ask for members to agree that once more that we will be going into private session.
And please stop the webcast and will any non -members of the committee and Councillors
please now leave the webcast.
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 Stephen Murray
District councillor for Loughton Roding ward
Independent
View profile Cllr Stephen Murray
Cllr Smruti Patel
District councillor for Buckhurst Hill West ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Smruti Patel
Cllr Kaz Rizvi
District councillor for Chigwell with Lambourne ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Kaz Rizvi
Cllr Geoff Shaw
District councillor for Theydon Bois with Passingford ward
Reform UK
View profile Cllr Geoff Shaw
Andrew Small
Chief Executive
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Andrew Small
Owen Sparks
Interim Strategic Director / S151 Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Owen Sparks
Cllr Darshan Sunger
District councillor for Chigwell with Lambourne ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Darshan Sunger
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
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