Interactive webcast player

Cabinet
Monday, 12th October 2026 at 7:00pm

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Kaz Rizvi
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  3. Cllr Darshan Sunger
  4. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
  1. Vivienne Messenger
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  3. Cllr Raymond Balcombe
  4. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  5. Cllr Raymond Balcombe
  6. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  7. Cllr Raymond Balcombe
  8. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  9. Cllr Raymond Balcombe
  10. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  11. Public Speaker
  12. Cllr Raymond Balcombe
  13. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  14. Public Speaker
  15. Cllr Raymond Balcombe
  16. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  17. Public Speaker
  18. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Holly Whitbread
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
  1. Matt Winslow
  2. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  3. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  4. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  5. Matt Winslow
  6. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  7. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  8. Matt Winslow
  9. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  10. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  11. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  12. Matt Winslow
  13. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  14. Cllr Stephen Murray
  15. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  16. Matt Winslow
  17. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  18. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  19. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  20. Matt Winslow
  21. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  22. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  23. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  24. Matt Winslow
  25. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  26. Cllr Will Kauffman
  27. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  28. Matt Winslow
  29. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  30. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  31. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  32. Matt Winslow
  33. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  34. Cllr Martin Morris
  35. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  36. Matt Winslow
  37. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  38. Cllr Will Kauffman
  39. Matt Winslow
  40. Cllr Chris Whitbread
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:00:08
Good evening, members. I will start with the webcasting introduction. I would like to remind

1 Webcasting Introduction

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 of our public speakers on MS Teams do not wish to have their image
captured, they should ensure that their video settings throughout the meeting are turned
off and set to audio only.
Members, I don't have to tell you that when you wish to speak, please press your microphone

2 Apologies for Absence

on, and when you finish, turn your microphone off. We have one apology for absence this
evening or one maybe for lateness.
Apologies for lateness from Councillor Patel.
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:00:58
Thank you. We have apologies from Councillor Williamson, who I'm sure we all wish well,
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:01:02
who's just back out of hospital and on the road to recovery, but I'm sure he's watching us this
evening and obviously we all hope it gets well very soon. Declarations of interest, members.

3 Declarations of Interest

No, okay.

4 Minutes

Minutes of the last meeting, not on the pink.
Can I take those as being agreed?
Thank you.

5 Reports of Portfolio Holders

Are there any additional reports of portfolio holders?
Councillor Risley.
Yeah, thank you very much, Lido.
Cllr Kaz Rizvi - 0:01:35
And just a couple of bits to update members on.
We just finished a fantastic annual community lottery
celebration event, which we've managed to raise
last year, 34K.
This year we've managed to get on track
for raising 28 ,000 pounds for good causes
across the district already.
And we've distributed around 4 ,000 pounds
in additional bonus grants as well.
So thank you, Nida and other members of the cabinet
for coming in to participate with that.
Other additional items which will be worthwhile
to bring to members attention,
we've got the Stay Safe and Well event in Waltham Abbey
later on this week on the 15th of October,
which is sold out and we've got over 90 residents
registered for that.
And then we've got a similar event in Chigwell
at Limes Farm Community Centre on the 18th of November,
which still has a few spaces remaining.
And in terms of specifically the health and wellbeing part
of my portfolio, we've got the public consultation
for the new Epping Forest Health and Wellbeing Strategy
27 to 2031, which will go live next week
and the one through to December.
So, still opportunities for residents to engage
with that public consultation,
which will go live next week.
And in terms of updates from Officer Activities,
Laura, who's one of our public health apprentices,
has been invited to a parliamentary round table
with Liz Twist MP to highlight some of the work
that we're doing as a district council
to tackle the rising rates of suicide in our district
and how we're working to implement the HSE British standards
on suicide in the workplace.
So those are a few of the all updates.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Sunger.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:03:20
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Darshan Sunger - 0:03:23
Just to add to the fly tipping saga
that's still continuing in our district.
We've been, I will update for council as well.
We have two vehicles that have been seized.
I can say this because we have been working in collaboration with Essex Police and the
City of London Corporation.
These vehicles are about to be crushed soon.
So I will be there to press the button to make sure they do get crushed into tin cans.
But yes, I will give some more good news storey.
Thank you.
That is really good.
Thank you.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:03:53
Okay.
Moving on, members.
We have had reports from portfolio holders.

6 Public Questions and Requests to Address the Cabinet

Are there any public questions or requests to address the Cabinet?
Vivienne Messenger - 0:04:06
MS. PIPER. There are. We've got three requests to address questions, and we've got one address.
CHAIRMAN HENRY. Okay. So we have one to address the Cabinet?
MS. PIPER. Yes, one at 6b after the questions.
CHAIRMAN HENRY. Okay. Thank you very much. We have a number of questions this evening.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:04:20
We have, first of all, two questions from a Mr. Jay Smith. Is Mr. Jay Smith online?
No? Okay. Let me read the questions and then Councillor Balcombe will answer them. Question
1, Epping Forest District Council has lent Qols, more than $121 million. In 2025, EFDC
wiped out about $19 .4 million of Qols debt in exchange for Cottis Lane car park, now
value at 3 .44 million. Last year, the Council took back Roundhills in a deal that increased
its own housing revenue account, borrowing costs by about 10 million over 30 years. Also,
last year, the Council advisor said that over 30 % of the 89 million QALYST owes is unlikely
to be paid back. Despite this, over the last 18 months, the Council has lent QALYST a further
$10 .55 million to finish Springwood Grove. This was on top of any previous loans for
the site and with many millions from more to be lent this year. So far, this money lent
has been borrowed from PWLB over 10 years. Next year, the Council is proposing to write
off a further $16 million of QALYST debt, as well as paying QALYST $19 .65 million to
buy back Springwood Grove. Can cabinet explain in plain English exactly how much public money
has been lost, written off, remains at risk or is unsecured through quality investments
and development? How will those positions change if the Council buys back Springwood
Grove?
Councillor Bailão.
Cllr Raymond Balcombe - 0:06:05
The additional lending provided for Springwood Grove was approved because leaving the development
incomplete would have placed a much larger amount of the Council's existing investment
at risk.
Completing the scheme enables homes to be sold or transferred and maximise the amount
of debt that can be recovered.
As at 31 March 26, the Council's accounts included an expected credit loss provision
of approximately $26 .5 million against QALYST loan balance of $84 .9 million.
This is an accounting assessment of potential non -recovery and not a realised loss.
Appropriate provisions was made within the Council's 26 -27 medium -term financial plan.
The final deficit to the Council will depend on timing and income received from the remaining
asset sales and is subject to the ongoing review.
Thank you.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:07:25
Thank you very much. The second question, officers told cabinet that the Cottish
Lane deal left the Council around £978 ,000 a year worse off, and the account said
the proposed 16 million QALYST right -of -all -cut Council income by another 960 ,000
a year. Epping Forest is also still carrying out servicing with very substantial
borrowing, it took out pay for the QALYST loans and the finances are starting to show
strain, with a $1 .54 million shortfall predicted in 27 -28, with the gap getting bigger in the
years to come.
Again, in plain English, how much interest in capital repayments will the Council pay
on its QALYST -related borrowing in 27 -28, and how much interest in capital repayment
is quality budgeted to pay the Council in 2728, taking into account the known reductions
and how much of the 1 .54 million budget gap will the residents be asked to fund.
Councillor Bailão.
Cllr Raymond Balcombe - 0:08:33
The forecast budget gap of 1 .54 million in 2728 reflects a range of financial pressures
facing the Council.
Further details, including interest and capital payments, were provided in the 26 -27 Budget
Report approved by full Council in February 26.
Any funding gap will be addressed through the normal budget -setting process, including
expenses, income generation, service reviews and decisions on Council tax within the Government
Refriend limits. Returns from COLIS are now expected to be lower than originally
forecast, and the Council has already reflected this in the financial planning.
The final cost to the Council will depend on the outcome of asset sales, debt recovery,
and the proposed restructuring arrangements.
Thank you.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:09:29
We then move on to two further questions from Charlotte Williams.
Question 1, the QALYST business plan 2428, approved by cabinet on 18th of December
23, said QALYST would stop needing further council borrowing and the future development
surpluses would clear its historic deficit by November 24.
QALYST was reporting that the development projections had deteriorated.
There were no pipe, there was no pipeline to generate those future surpluses and development
was being stopped at that point.
Did cabinet accept that the financial model had failed?
Councillor Bailton.
Cllr Raymond Balcombe - 0:10:09
The Council continually reviewed the performance and financial position of its companies through
established governance and reporting arrangements.
The 2428 business plan was based on information, market conditions and forecasts available
at the time.
As the housing and development market continued to change during 24, including increased construction
costs, higher borrowing costs and weaker market conditions, it became apparent that a number
of development assumptions underpinning the business plan would not be achieved in the
timeframe originally anticipated.
This was reflected in the reports presented to the Council and the company boards during
and subsequently informed the wider review of the Council's company arrangements.
The Council would not characterise this in a single point at which the financial model
was deemed to have failed.
Rather, it was a progressive reassessment of viability of future development activity
and ability of the activity to generate the surplus original forecast.
As those risks became clearer, the Council took steps to review the future role, structure
and operating model of its companies to ensure that they remained aligned with the Council's
strategic and financial objectives.
Thank you.
Thank you. And then the second question. By November 24—
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:11:45
Here's what I found.
By November 24, Cabinet knew that the assumptions underpinning the Qolis business plan had materially
deteriorated. Why did the detailed quarterly group financial reporting then disappear from
public view, just as the financial position was worsening?
Cllr Raymond Balcombe - 0:12:07
The Council has continued to receive information regarding the financial performance and position
of its companies throughout this period.
Through the established shareholder
and governance arrangements,
the format and content of reports presented in public
are determined by a range of factors,
including relevance to the decision -making,
commercial sensitivity, public interest,
and the need to protect the Council's position
as shareholder.
This approach is consistent with requirements
that apply to local authority -owned companies where detailed financial information is often
commercially confidential.
The reduction in the amount of detailed financial information reported publicly did not mean
that an oversight reduced.
Cabinet officers and the relevant Government bodies continue to receive information necessary
to discharge their respective responsibilities.
The Council has also undertaken a broader review of the company arrangements, the findings
and recommendations of which have been considered through the Council's normal decision -making
process.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:13:19
Members, we now have two questions from Ms Jeffcote, who is online.
Ms Jeffcote, would you like to read your questions?
Yes, certainly, thank you.
Public Speaker - 0:13:29
The Cabinet was recently advised that quality property services was making an unusually
high amounts of money because their new pricing model was higher than it should be.
In other words, Qualis Property Services income was high because they had been significantly
overcharging the council.
This resulted in about 1 .6 million being due back to Epping Forest.
Given this, the purpose of this question this evening is to hear an explanation from Cabinet
as to how this council managed to overpay its own company by 1 .6 million in the first
place.
How long was the Council overcharged before the 1 .6 million overpayment to QALYST was noticed?
Who identified it, the overcharging?
And what controls were in place previously to make sure Epping Forest District Council was not overcharged by its own companies?
Have these controls improved since this incident?
And how confident are the Cabinet that there are no other instances of overcharging or overpayment to its own companies?
Thank you.
Councillor Babbitt.
Cllr Raymond Balcombe - 0:14:34
The 1 .6 million figure did not arise because QALYST Property Services has deliberately
or incorrectly overcharged the Council.
It was identified through a detailed and planned review of target costs models that had been
implemented between EFDC and QALYST Property Services as part of the wider work to strengthen
financial oversight and ensure value for money.
Under the target, cost model annual service costs are agreed in advance based on the forecast,
workloads, resource and delivery requirements.
Actual performance and costs are then monitored against those agreed targets.
During the review of 2526, arrangements, officers identified performance had exceeded the target
cost assumptions used within the model set by the consultants for iSolutions, resulting
in efficiencies and savings that were greater than they originally anticipated.
The outcome of the review was that approximately $1 .6 million was identified as a financial
adjustment in favour of the Council.
This was not the discovery of an accounting error or an instance of inappropriate charging,
but the result of applying the agreed review and reconciliation mechanisms within the target
cost model to ensure that the cost and payments accurately reflect the actual service delivery.
The review was undertaken by officers as part of a broader programme to strengthen financial
governance, transparency, contract management arrangements.
As a result, the Council and QALYST have further refined the operation target cost model, including
enhanced monitoring, regular performance reviews, external third -party reviews and strengthened
financial oversight. These arrangements provide assurance that costs are appropriately scrutinised,
efficiencies are identified promptly and any required adjustments are made transparently
in accordance with the contract framework. Cabinet can therefore be confident that the
The 1 .6 million adjustment demonstrates the effectiveness of the review and assurance
process rather than failure of it.
The fact that the mechanism identified savings were subsequently returned to the Council
provides evidence that the governance and arrangements are functioning as intended and
that costs charged by the Council companies continue to be subject to scrutiny, challenge
and independent review.
Thank you.
Ms Tretco, your second question.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:17:33
Yes, thank you.
Public Speaker - 0:17:39
St John's Row, Cottontay Yard, Condor, Springwood Grove as it is now known, and Brownhills were transferred to QALIS
for about $14 .8 million in 2021, and QALIS funded the purchase with loans from Epping Forest District Council.
A year earlier, February 20th, the Cabinet approved the Chair had approved the shareholder
agreement and governance arrangements for the POLIS project, requiring prior approval
of business cases for each proposed development, detailed appraisals and separate approval
of loans.
POLIS documentation has since confirmed those detailed scheme appraisals had not been completed
and a business plan for each development was not in place when the sites were transferred.
These were cheques and balances put in place to safeguard public money.
Why in 2021 was $14 .8 million of public land transferred before detailed appraisals had been completed?
Why did Epping Forest lend Qualis the money to buy that land before the projects had been properly appraised?
What evidence did cabinet have before it went ahead with the transfer to QALYST, that each
scheme was financially viable and that QALYST had both the capability and resources to deliver
them?
Councillor Bailão.
Cllr Raymond Balcombe - 0:18:56
The original transfer of the sites to QALYST took place within the governance framework
that existed at the time and reflected the Council's strategic objective of delivering
housing.
regeneration and investment through its wholly owned development company.
Development opportunities are often progressed over a number of years with detailed feasibility work,
planning activity, market testing and business case development, continuing as projects involved.
Decisions taken at the time reflected the information, professional advice and market conditions then available.
Each development scheme is supported by a financial appraisal using industry standard tools.
Thank you very much.
Thank you to all members of the public for their questions.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:19:48
We now move on to section 6B, which is to address the Cabinet.
And I believe Ms Chafkout, you'd like to address the Cabinet.
We have three minutes.
Public Speaker - 0:20:01
Thank you. Under action 7, I ask Cabinet to send the proposed Springwood growth purchase
back to overview and scrutiny, for them to scrutinise whether paying QALYSTs
19 .6 million on top of what has already been lent to them is the best use of public money.
No one is denying we need affordable housing.
The question is how much these homes have already cost local taxpayers and what the final cost to us would be.
The council's own documents show by March this year at least
24 .3 million had already been lent to QALYSTs in Springwood Grove.
That doesn't include the £9 .48 million that Councillor Holly Whitbread has confirmed will
be lent to Qualis this year to finish it.
We could be looking at almost £34 million already handed over to build a development
with an open market valuation of £23 .3 million.
If this Council then spends another £19 .6 million to buy it back, that's potentially
over £53 million of public money for a development worth less than half that.
This proposal needs in -depth oversight and scrutiny before moving forward any further.
We keep hearing these are internal transactions or simply movements on balance sheets.
But this is real money the Council has handed over and is not getting back.
And it's real money the Council has borrowed to make these loans.
Since 2019, the Council has borrowed at least $55 million from the Public Works Loan Board to lend onto a colis.
We know Epping owe them around $9 million for Cottish Lane Cardbark.
Last year the Council borrowed all the money it lent to Qolis and if the same happens this
year the Council could end up owing the Public Works Loan Board over £20 million on Spring
which Grove alone.
We also know Qolis is struggling to make interest payments.
That's why there's a proposed £16 million write off of Qolis debt next year to reduce
Qolis interest payments to Epping by nearly £1 million a year.
But that means nearly £1 million a year in lost income to the Council.
The very income we have been told again and again is so essential to the Council's finances,
all while Epping still has to pay off its own rising borrowing.
And if Epping buys Springwood back, what assets are left securing the $19 million of outstanding
Qolsys loans?
The obvious question is why are the Council not just taking Springwood back, rather than
paying another $19 .6 million for it?
Qolsys as a developer has failed.
It can't pay back its loans or the interest on them, so why send good money after bad?
The need for affordable housing does not make every purchase good value, and having money
in the budget does not prove it is being wisely spent.
Will Cabinet and your overview and scrutiny and other councillors can look again, this
time with the full loan, debt and cost position made clear, so it can be publicly and transparently
scrutinised as to whether buying back Springwood is the most cost effective and sensible way
of acquiring this affordable housing.
Thank you, Mr Jeffcott.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:22:56
And I'm sure you'll be paying close attention to the scrutiny meeting on the 2nd of November,
I believe.
Members, again, thank you to Mr Jeffcott for her comments this evening and the questions
we've received.
I am now going to go to Councillor Patel to see if you have any direct declarations of
interest for tonight.
Thank you very much.
We then move on to the report of overview and scrutiny.

7 Overview and Scrutiny

There has been no overview and scrutiny meeting since our last meeting for obvious timetabling
reasons.
Therefore, I move on to item 8, which is community asset management policy.

8 Community Assets Management Policy

Councillor Whitburn.
Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:23:36
Thank you, Chairman, and I am pleased to present the community assets management policy this
evening to Cabinet.
This report has been through extensive scrutiny and I would particularly like to thank Councillor
Dadd who we had several meetings with and really looked at the report in detail and
I think has enhanced it and also placed scrutiny who looked at this report.
So this policy is a framework for considering requests to take on management of Council
owned community assets.
We need to be very clear, this is not about any assets that have any commercial value,
This is purely assets which we deem not to have commercial value,
but are of huge value to the local community.
And we're looking at potentially transferring them over to parish councils,
town councils and community organisations.
As the policy sets out, each application would be looked at on an individual level.
So every application would have to go through an extensive process
and would be looked at on its own merits.
And there would be robust safeguards in place
to ensure best value for this council
and to ensure it's appropriate to pass the asset over.
And not in terms of ownership,
but it's in terms of the management of the asset.
This was particularly relevant
when we were talking about local government reform,
but it still remains very relevant
because there are many assets
which don't get utilised to their full extent
and actually could be of huge value and better utilised for local communities.
It's a clear and controlled policy, which means we can look to enhance community assets
for the benefit of residents, and I hope that members of the Cabinet will be happy to support
this evening.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Members of the Cabinet, any questions?
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:25:22
No?
Members of Council, any questions?
This is a thoroughly sensible piece of work that's been done. I thank officers for the
work that's gone on to it. It came originally from an inquiry I had about a local scout
hut in my area. It's really important that we have something there that enables us to
review these carefully and of course in some cases they will need more work than others
in order to progress.
members have got their recommendations before you.
They have been fully gone through the scrutiny process and further questioning by Councillor
Daddis we've heard.
Are we happy to agree the recommendations?
Agreed.
Thank you very much.
Okay.

9 Approval of Section 62A Action Plan

We then move on to the approval of section 52A action plan.
Now, unfortunately, Councillor Williamson cannot be with us this evening.
So I will start the process and then hand over to Mr Winslow to take us through the
real detail and to respond to some of the questions that I am sure there will be.
First of all, I know that Ken would have wanted me to thank the policy working group, PAG,
that came together to look at this cross -party.
It is a really important thing that we need to do.
It is a stepping stone towards actually getting this dreadful position lifted so that we are
able to decide ourselves again on all planning applications.
There are recommendations and some steps forward within this report.
Once the report is agreed, it will go to full Council on 22 October for ratification by
all members.
It is probably one of the most important things we need to do.
We do not want to be sitting in this position, especially with the changes in government
rules on planning and some of the speculative developments that are coming forward at the
present time.
It is very important wherever you are in the district, but I am sure Mr Winslow might wish
to take us through some of the detail.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Matt Winslow - 0:27:38
So, the report before Cabinet tonight does set out a recommended Improvement Action Plan
associated with Section 62A.
We've tried to ensure that the Cabinet report explains what the designation means and doesn't
mean.
And I think it's promising that in the last quarter,
the council's performance on the amount of appeals,
major appeals it has lost,
so therefore those ones that have been approved
has fallen for the second consecutive time.
So for the second consecutive quarter,
we are performing below the threshold
of government intervention, but only just.
and there's a way to go before we would be comfortably under it.
In terms of developing the section 62A action plan, as you noted, Chair, this has been through
a cross -party policy advisory group that I understand, you know, fed into a number of
potential actions that could be looked at.
The action plan is in the appendix of the report and what it firstly does is set out
the outstanding actions from the Planning Advisory Service.
Members might remember that when it was reported that the Council was at risk of designation
due to the performance of major application being lost at appeal, it electively brought
the Planning Advisory Service in for help and assistance.
That led to a report which recommended a number of actions, and those have been worked on
over the course of the last couple of years, perhaps the most significant of which members
will be aware of, which was the reduction from four area and a district planning committee
to two planning committees of nine members each.
And so the first part of the action plan sets out how the council is doing against those
external recommendations.
And the second part is the detailed improvements, that's page 40 onwards, which the policy advisory
group discussed and is looking at where there can be improvements to training opportunities
is for not just planning committee members, but also for officers.
The second sort of grouping is around ensuring members have the best available information
for decision -making.
The third is about performance reporting and assessment, including how we can better share
how appeal decisions, sorry, how appeal decisions,
what appeal decisions have been arrived at
and what lessons can be learned and taken from those
to improve decision making and reduce the chances
of appeal losses in future.
And also procedural changes to how officers look
at major planning applications and a review
of the section 106 process.
And in terms of the latter, page 45 onwards,
it's important to probably stress that this was at these,
most of these actions were already underway
as part of the planning service plan.
And that's a joint activity
between planning and legal services.
Finally, there's an action grouping
on the governance arrangements for monitoring
and reviewing this action plan. Although having the action plan itself is one of the prerequisites
to get de -designated, we know from the experience of talking to the likes of Uttlesford that
the Government will keep an eye on what we are doing and they will expect us to monitor
it up to the point of designation and beyond designation to make sure the changes that
have been proposed are starting to make a difference.
I am happy to take any questions, Chair.
Thanks very much, Matt.
Members, any questions?
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:32:02
Councillor Whiskin.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:32:08
I have got multiple questions, and one point which may not be relevant, but I would like
to raise it regarding planning.
A slight concern I have is that this, I understand, is approved tonight.
This has not gone through any form of scrutiny process.
We will be getting a briefing on the 21st, the day before the full Council meeting.
Is that sufficient for members to view this in its detail?
I think within the report this has gone to place scrutiny for looking at.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:32:45
Oh no it hasn't.
I've been told off now.
No it hasn't gone to place scrutiny.
So the action plan hasn't gone to place scrutiny.
Matt Winslow - 0:32:58
But place scrutiny received a report at every meeting about the update of putting together
the action plan.
So place scrutiny have been engaged within the process.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:33:04
Obviously, there was the Portfolio Holder Advisory Group, which is a number of the councillors
who have got planning knowledge.
There have been workshops and discussions previously for members when we first went
into the section 52 position.
So it has gone through the process and again, as I said, it goes to full council on the
22nd of October for final ratification and before that there will be the workshop.
Councillor Whisky.
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:33:38
Thank you.
Secondly, on page 39 there is allusion to the creation of one planning committee.
A lot of discussions, perhaps not publicly, discussions have said that this is perhaps
not appropriate for Epping Forest District Council, given the size and the scope and
the range.
I for one would not be interested in sitting in that committee, and people I know of have
also expressed the same opinion.
So again, this is on the plan to target to arrive at one committee.
Again, I am not sure that is appropriate.
Another recommendation of PAS, and please correct me if I'm wrong, was that Board
Councillors should have a vote on the committees, and that has been completely
ignored in any of these findings.
So it's correct that the Planning Advisory Service felt that the arrangements
Matt Winslow - 0:34:41
that are in place at Epping should allow political maturity.
I think that's their words, which is allowing members to be in a position where they may
be predetermined and may have to leave the room rather than banning them from the debate
and taking part.
Ward Councillors are involved in other councils, but it does mean that there's greater degree
of risk, I guess, to Councillors that participate in planning committees.
Thank you.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:35:16
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:35:20
I'm going to go to Councillor L
on these meetings and not online.
These are important meetings.
There are failings on the online system
and I don't think it's appropriate that these high level,
and these are gonna be major applications,
we know what's coming down the road in this district.
We've got major developments all across the district,
mainly in the north part of the district,
but that is going to take up a huge amount of time
And it does merit and demand that the officers involved are in the Chamber face to face
with people who make those decisions.
I would like to see the whites of their eyes, to be honest.
Thank you, Councillor Whiskin.
That is a very helpful comment.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:36:30
Mr Winslow, would you like to remark on that at all?
Matt Winslow - 0:36:35
Only to say that the – I mean, I note the point that Council is making.
So in terms of the current arrangements, there has to be a planning officer present
in the Chamber that is of a senior level.
So we have, although we have lots of case officers,
there is always a senior planner that is present
alongside the legal officer or legal representation
to advise the Chair and Vice Chair and the Committee.
But I note your point.
Thank you. Councillor Murray.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:37:04
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Stephen Murray - 0:37:07
Apologies for not being in the Chamber tonight.
I've read this carefully and most of it I can personally agree with and I'm pleased
to see enhanced training and a number of different procedures.
I won't go into detail about my concerns but I attended a planning committee as a ward
Councillor because we had a ward application in front of the last planning committee and
and there were certain points of procedure which I've already taken out with offices
that kind of really surprised me and I was concerned about. I would endorse the point
that Councillor Whiskin made. I do think that the case officer should be present in the
Chamber and I was really quite surprised that that wasn't the case on the application within
the ward that I attended the meeting for. The main point I want to make is we are
on the right tracks because as the officer has said we are two quarters below the
government target or threshold or whatever you want to describe it so we are moving in the
right direction. I am not convinced that moving from two to one committee is
necessary to ensure that continued growth success.
I've seen no evidence in what I've read on this agenda item that that will materially
affect whether we improve at a faster rate.
And because I've not, I don't have that evidence, I feel that the real concerns about having
one committee certainly outweigh any possible benefit it might have in
lowering that percentage figure even lower. I have a number of concerns about it
which I won't go into here, but I'm sure other members will at full council, but
there's also a really important point. We were told on numerous occasions that
When the team had known that was wrong, the report that we had implementing changes when
we moved from 4 to 2 committees and other changes, we were told that there was going
to be a proper review.
And there has not been a proper review.
Now I accept that we have been given good reasons and we were told there were government
not making sense to hold the promise review but the material fact is that
we've had significant changes and no review of those changes have taken place
and yet we're now being asked to accept another material change in terms of
committee structures moving down from two to one without any, unless I've missed it,
without any evidence within the report, but that's an essential move to make to get rid
of this section 62A designation, which we all agree we need to get rid of as quickly
as possible.
But for me, that key recommendation within this report from the working group isn't one
that I could accept, Chairman, and I suppose I could vote to provide a full Council unless
I hear really good arguments, but it is an essential step to improve our performance.
And I haven't heard those tonight and I haven't read those within the agenda. Thank you, Chairman.
Councillor Murray, thank you very much for your wise comments, as always. I think the
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:41:08
important thing to take out of this is it's a direction of travel, not a definite we are
going to go to one committee. It is something we were asked to explore. It is not necessarily
something that we would want to do. I think that is very clear from this report. It is
a direction of travel and a debate over one committee, not a decision to go to one committee.
I think there are many members across the whole Council who would be opposed to that,
who have spoken to me previously about it as well. We are not wedded to going to one
committee, what we are wedded to is getting ourselves in a position where we can get rid
of this dreaded section 52A quicker than other councils have in other areas.
And it's not, we are seeing the green shoots of improvement that have come from the changes
we've already made, but that's not a guarantee that we will get out of section 52A as quickly
as we would like because you are only ever won the pill against you from actually losing
again and being back into section 52A territory. So I think that is really important. I think
Mr Winslow wanted to come back as well with just a comment there.
Matt Winslow - 0:42:28
Thank you, Chair. It is reinforcing your points actually that you have made. So the inclusion
of the, in the first part of the report, of the PAS recommendations. They are the recommendations
that have previously been presented to Council and obviously influenced your decision to
move from your previous committee structure to your new one. In terms of, as you've iterated,
the approval of the section 62A report doesn't remove the choice that you have as a Council
Council to keep with your current two planning committee system, if that's to be the case.
It's just pointing out that the planning advisory service recommended that to you previously.
And the steps that you took as a council in 24, 25, it is those that are starting to bear
fruit in terms of the improvements to performance because the decisions that we're seeing that
are coming through in terms of the appeals
are now ones that were made after October 2024
when the decision to change over to the different Planning Committee systems was made.
The only thing to perhaps add to that is that
if you were ever to face that choice in the future,
if you ever wanted to bring that in,
that would need a change to the constitution,
change to Article 10, which is the Planning Committee's terms of reference.
and that's a separate decision in addition to approving the action plan.
So the action plan really is ensuring that you've got a number of tasks which you feel,
as a Council, there's room for improvement that can bring the performance back down to
a more comfortable level in future, but it doesn't remove your ability to not take forward
the proposal for a single planning committee.
Thank you.
Councillor Whitehouse.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:44:26
Thanks for this.
Yes.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:44:29
And one of the things I felt reading the action plan was there's not always a clear logical
link between each point and how strictly it will possibly impact on our performance at
appeal.
I mean, sometimes that's implied, but sometimes it's just a sort of, well, here's the thing
we're doing without any expectation that this is how it will help.
I mean, that's the general point.
And the other point I'd make,
and I think it's been true throughout this process,
is there's been lots of discussion
about what happens at committee,
but of course, doing well at appeal is an end -to -end process
which starts from the first reapplication consultation
right through to performance at the appeal itself,
where the quality of evidence and presentation
so forth could be crucial.
and particularly in terms of how do we resource
and make sure we're putting the best foot forward at appeal,
there doesn't seem to be an awful lot about that
in the action plan.
I do like some of the, I mean, I think the stuff
about the case officers being freed up
to yield applicants a bit more,
where that can help move things forward is helpful.
I think it's important also able to deal with third parties
where that can make better planning decisions.
Otherwise, the danger is you get perception
of planning officers trying to make an acceptance happen
rather than trying to get the best planning outcome
in line with the plan.
I'm interested in the emphasis in the action plan
on the section 106 process,
which I hadn't seen previously come up
as an obstacle to our appeal performance.
It'd be interesting to understand a bit more
about the link between that and appeal performance.
I think it's something he's addressing anyway
because sometimes it takes an amazing time
to get Section 6s through,
but I don't quite see these issues
come up with appeals regularly.
And then when we had the PAS review,
there was a lot of support for reinstating
performance information like we used to.
And that's mentioned quite a lot in the action plan.
I don't understand why that's taken
quite so long to implement.
and it's not really clear in the action plan which is the performance and the information
that's going to officers, which is the performance and the information going to chairs and vice -chairs,
which is going to members, and indeed some is relevant to town and parish councils and
other people involved in planning decisions to help them make better representations.
Generally I think the more of us who've got access to that planning, that performance
and indication, understand why planning inspectors make the decisions they do, the more likely
who we are to write good representations
and make good contributions to planning meetings.
And then finally,
as has been said, given we've not actually evaluated
and reviewed the move from four planning committees to two,
it does seem a bit premature
to think about changing that again.
I mean, I've attended plans B committees,
plans East committees, and our current planning committees,
and I can't honestly say I've noticed
a very highly more elevated standard of discussion
at the current planning committees
and the old planning committees,
perhaps that's a training issue,
but there's more to it than just a number
of planning committees, so I'll leave it there.
Thank you, Councillor Whitehouse, that was helpful.
Matt, anything you'd like to add to that at all?
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:47:57
Yeah, I think, thank you, Chair,
Matt Winslow - 0:48:01
I mean, I think in terms of the comments on performance, I mean, we're getting with some
of the changes that will be coming to Council towards the end of October, there is now a
kind of statutory reflection on how planning performance needs to be owned more by the
whole Council, rather than just thinking it's something that sits with officers or sits
to the planning committee and some of the conversations
that we've had with chairs and vice chairs
and also at the place scrutiny committee,
I think suggests that more information about
how performance in general across the planning service,
not just in respects of majors that this is looking at,
but rather than just reporting on the national key
performance indicators, there's a bit more of a basket of information that's brought
to members going forward.
I think in terms of you clearly as a council did own this performance target to the extent
that you brought the planning advisory service in before you went over the threshold to try
to see if any advice that it was providing could change the fortunes of the Council in
respects of the performance of majors, which brought about the Playing Advisory Services
report to you.
I think in terms of Section 106, the focus really is that Section 106 is often a major
component of major planning applications because they are, because of their complex
nature, be that the size or the sort of matters that are go, that are, that are,
that we're reflecting on.
And I think when the action plan was looked at, we, we know that there are not,
that there are, that we wish the counsel to do better in respects of the Section
106 process.
Now, that's in terms of negotiating the right levels of contributions in, which do get discussed
at Planning Appeals and can affect things in terms of major planning applications.
But there's also the process part around that as well, generally the speed between the resolution
to grant planning permission and the signing of the Section 106, which would issue the
decision notice.
that can be quite a lengthy time.
And in some applications,
I think probably can be unreasonably lengthy,
or could be viewed in that way.
The council itself is not the only responsible party
for those, the developers are partly responsible,
but also solicitors that were involved
in drafting the section 106s plus any external bodies.
So, whilst there may not be a strong connexion, perhaps, between appeal performance and Section
106, it is connected with major planning applications, and it was felt that putting it into the action
plan demonstrates to the government that we're serious about how the Council deals with majors,
which is one of the measures that they also look at in addition to the action plan to
de -designate us, because there are four things that we have to demonstrate more compliance
with and our treatment of major applications in general being positive and trying to improve
the service we offer is something that they look at.
Thank you.
Councillor Whitehouse.
Thanks for that, that's helpful.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:51:42
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:51:43
If I can, just on the performance information, I don't think it should all be about numbers.
I think the quality of information is also really important.
For example, if there is a consistent mismatch between the way that planning committees put
on particular issues, and the highways or whatever, and that planning inspectors put
on particular issues, that is the sort of thing that needs to be fed back by reading
the appeal decisions and working out the common factors.
Thank you.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:52:13
Anything to come back on that particular piece, or are we in agreement?
Thank you, Joe.
I mean, no, I agree.
Matt Winslow - 0:52:22
Hopefully, I mean, I think one of the actions is able to kind of capture that already.
Some of the conversations that we've had is bringing a more regular appeal lessons to Planning Committee, for example,
and also introducing a similar, more reflective time for officers as well.
Although appeal learning happens,
it doesn't necessarily happen at the moment
in a structured way.
So we think that actually bringing some structure in
on those lessons would be important to pick up the points
that you're kind of suggesting,
that there might actually be,
we might be consistently losing on a point
that we always refuse on.
And if that could be the difference between winning an appeal
and losing an appeal, then that should be something which the Council reflects on in
terms of its practise. It might not particularly like the answer the planning and spectra it
gives, but it is learning as to how its development plan and national policies are being applied,
and that certainly will probably now be even more of an issue since the national planning
policy changed in August.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Kaufman.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:53:39
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:53:42
Mr Winslow slightly shot my fox earlier when it came to the alterations that are going
to be necessary to the Constitution.
Obviously, your good self, Councillor Balcom and I have spent quite a lot of evenings
sat in planning committees and listening to the various discussions and schemes that come
forward.
I think we're all grown up enough to say that I think one planning committee, since we've
There's always been one committee that's slightly stronger than the other.
There's a presence of certainly one counsellor from across the room that always
makes her, giving the game away her opinion very, very well known.
It's very much appreciated what she brings.
Are we being over polite in saying that possibly what we should do is maybe if we do
go to one committee that actually what we could possibly do is bring in members
from the other.
So maybe we have one single committee, but it has a greater number.
So I think in the emerging scheme of delegation, I think that says that you can go up to a maximum of 13.
I'm not 100 percent sure on that.
I'm sure Mr. Winslow will confirm on that.
Within the designation improvement action plan, and it may be me just skim reading
But one thing that I'm very keen to deal with on what people sort of say to me in the industry
is that it's not necessarily councillors that they want some sort of...
They want some more support in terms of working out what offices are going to do,
making sure that there is sufficient qualitative input from offices.
There are schemes that have gone through a multitude of different planning offices
and bumbled along for months, which ultimately could end up being a negative KPI point if
that was to go through an appeal for non -determination, say.
So I think not to put too fine a point on it, I just want to make sure that it's not
purely councillors that are going to be carrying the responsibility of getting away from the
Section 62A designation, that it's officers as well as us that are responsible for it.
And what can be done, again, I don't want to dwell too specifically on planning applications,
but had the Ladyfields application the other day been a private applicant,
Councillor McIver said it quite well, that that could have been a real own goal for us.
That could well have gone to an appeal.
We would have been going against officers' recommendations there.
And I think we just need to be very cautious that we don't do too much to impact the qualitative
nature of what we're doing.
I suppose the long storey short is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
But I've droned off enough.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:56:44
Yes, so as I made at the start, this is Section 62A is a judgement on the planning authority.
Matt Winslow - 0:56:48
So this is a judgement or a critique, if you like, on the officer and member component
of that, and not just those that sit on the planning committee, but those that have sat
on planning committees before, through the period of which the intervention of the designation
has been made.
So if any, you know, any officers or members that have been here since 2023, it's subject
to, essentially subject to the performance that we have now.
Section four of the action plan, so that is page 44,
they look at actions which are just purely in respects
of how officers can, what officers can offer
to the major planning application process.
So, that's, for example, seeking just, so we're looking at whether or not we can, well,
there are actions in here that are looking at everything from validation to decision
notice.
So, the process before we even assess a planning application right down to the sort of decision,
we are looking at, for example, some of the matters that you refer to, Councillor Kaufman,
and are to do with the application of something called
the Development Management Service Charter.
Now that restricts when a case officer can get involved
with an applicant that hasn't signed
a planning performance agreement.
So if they haven't signed a planning performance agreement,
there is a fairly basic statutory service that is offered.
So one of those actions is to relax the practise
for major planning applications so that,
So relax the policy, amend the policy perhaps in future,
so that there can actually be better interaction
between the applicants for major planning applications
and the case officer.
So there are, it is important to say that this is no,
in no way as they say, is the action plan trying to suggest
that all of these actions fall at the member's door
because they don't.
They are across the piece.
and it may be that these are not enough
and that we have to go further at some point in the future.
And I think that will be important
for the scrutiny committees to monitor going forwards
as the plan gets implemented
and hopefully performance in that time improves.
I mean, in terms of major planning applications,
the benefit of the planning performance agreement,
which is a service that costs more,
but it doesn't subsidise the applicants
as much as some of the other ones do, is to ensure that there is a more dynamic relationship
between the Council as the planning application passes through assessment.
So that's what we try to recommend major applicants go for.
Thank you.
Councillor Whiskin.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:59:48
Thank you, Chairman.
Can I just come back?
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:59:52
It is on this plan.
It says under the title of actions needed, and I quote, it says, reduce planning committee
down to the single committee as recommended by committee review and in national committee
reform guidance.
That's a stipulation.
That has to be reworded before I'll vote for that in one instance.
The second point I want to make is that clearly whilst we're in – we're de -designated,
whatever planning committees sit coming down the road will have very little to do, it seems
to appear because coming down the road is the scheme of delegation where officers were
making all the decisions.
Not particularly relevant to this point, but I think from a public interest point of view,
as we have legal representation and the head of planning in this Chamber tonight, could
we have some clarity as to what safeguards are in place or being bolstered up to ensure
that there is no inference of any potential corruption of officers in the future,
because that's the first thing in the public's mind, is that if it's now in the hands
of one person, a decision, it's far more open to influence, let's say, than it would
be for a committee of nine people.
Yeah, thank you, Councillor Whiskin.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:01:22
I have to say, and I'll be really clear about this, I've been on this Council 28 years,
and our officers are amongst the most professional that I've ever worked alongside.
And whilst you're right, we have to make sure that the right protections are in place,
both from a Councillor point of view and from an officer point of view,
for the good of public perception, which is what we mainly do.
But I've got to say to you, and I'll be really clear, I think our officers are first class
and I've never had an issue of that type ever brought to me in 28 years.
So I just think it's really important to say that right now.
And I go along to planning meetings to observe.
I never actually sit on a planning meeting.
I always make that clear to people because I don't believe that's the role of the leader
to do it.
It's there to be strategically useful rather than anything else.
But I just really want to be clear about those points.
I know the legal team and the head of planning will be looking at how the new legislation
means we have to work in the future.
and I'm sure those safeguards have been taken, but I'll go to Mr Winslow first of all just
to put me right where I'm wrong.
No, it's just perhaps just a bit of a clarification. Obviously, there will be a report to Council
Matt Winslow - 1:02:32
on this very important matter in the not too distant future, but the regulations which
Council Whiskin is referring to don't delegate all decisions to planning officers. They do
delegate decisions to officers and prevent a committee making certain planning application
decisions. In future, that's certainly the case, but it's stipulating regulations that
there are other applications that may be determined by planning committees subject to new statutory
procedures that have got to be put in place.
In terms of safeguards for, in terms of proper decision -making,
I mean, those safeguards already, I think, exist.
And obviously, there is whistleblowing procedures for the Council.
There is complaints process.
In terms of any professional officer,
if an officer is corrupted by an external influence,
then they're reportable to the Royal Town Planning Institute.
And depending on the severity or circumstances,
then they are reportable to the police for, you know, misconduct in public office.
So, in terms of what we have been looking at as part of this,
we're looking at changes to the planning code of practise
that make it clear how officers can conduct themselves
when they're determining applications which will never by law be able to come to committee
in the future.
That includes introducing new rules on lobbying to prevent officers being lobbied to make
a decision in a particular way.
There has been some discussions nationally amongst planning industry that employers,
So, therefore, the councils in this respect need to do what they can to ensure that officers
are protected from false allegations as well as obviously ensure that measures are in place
for those allegations to be investigated if they are there.
Thank you.
I think that should give you comfort, Councillor Whiskin.
Councillor Morris.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:04:55
Thank you.
I just have a couple of questions.
Cllr Martin Morris - 1:04:59
I downloaded this document today.
I don't know if I am the only person who has got this version of it, but protocols for
planning committee on page 39.
It says it is green but it is coloured amber and it would be nice to know which that was
for me and anybody else who has got the wrong version of the document.
On the review that we were promised after the changes that were made originally down
to the two committees, I understood that to be dependent on the changes to the policy
framework that was going to be made and the review was going to be carried out once those
had happened.
I understood that those changes are now in place and so there is no reason why that review
can't go ahead.
So I would like some confirmation on that as well.
In terms of the one committee, yes, I have not got a strong opinion on whether this will
improve things or not.
Not convinced it will.
But I don't believe now is the time to do it.
I think we will be better off focusing on getting the two committees to work as well
as possible rather than going for a lot of disruption to get it down to one.
I think one might be a longer term objective, but I think the focus has to be on getting
the current system to perform as well as it possibly can.
Councillor Morris, thank you for those comments.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:06:10
And actually I agree with you on the one committee.
I think it's probably too soon for us now, we've just gone to two.
But the longer term, we may be forced down that route in the future.
but that's in the future.
Mr Winslow, any comments on...
Yes, so to correct the report, and I must admit,
Matt Winslow - 1:06:30
when I looked at this about half an hour ago,
I also saw the glaring error that amber was shown as green
or green was shown as amber.
So the protocols for planning committee on page 39 is amber, not green,
so ignore the words.
And just there's a bit of justification for that in the column to the left,
which talks about changes to constitutions article 10,
so that's the terms of reference for planning committees
and the planning code of practise are being looked at
by the constitution working group at the moment
to bring them into line with national best practise.
So the reason for that waiting a little bit
was waiting for the new regulations,
which you just referred to, Councillor Morris.
In terms of the new rules that were previously perhaps impacting the review,
they will be in force from 31 October,
and the government has not brought in as, for the first wave of those reforms,
has not brought in everything that it was looking at originally doing,
that it has got the powers to do,
but the regulations at the moment limit the size of the planning committees to 13, so
there can be no bigger than that.
So if there was a desire to return to the District Planning Committee, for example,
you are prevented by law from the 31st of October from doing that.
There are the additional change, the major part is the introduction of the national scheme
of delegation and additional procedures to put that in place.
So the legislation, to answer your question, is in place from 31 October, and none of those
changes to the legislation affect the areas that perhaps would have been of concern at
the time about the review you are referring to.
Thank you.
Councillor Calfman, did you want to come back quickly?
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:08:37
There was a high -speed question just on the basis of we probably have some numbers.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:08:41
When the NSD does come into force, is there any thought on how regularly we will be sitting as planning committees?
I mean, presumably we can probably extrapolate out with the applications we have so far how many would meet the threshold of going into it.
It's tier two, isn't it, I think.
Is it tier A and tier two and then officer's choice?
So are we gonna be sitting so infrequently?
Actually, the point of having two planning committees
is irrelevant because we might as well just have one.
Thanks, Chair.
Matt Winslow - 1:09:14
Trying not to talk out of turn
to the constitution working group conversations
on the matter that's obviously a future committee report,
a report to council, sorry.
It's possible that the level of business to the planning committees of the Council may
go down.
We haven't run numbers to try and forecast that at this stage, but I think it will be
something that the Council needs to monitor.
There are applications that currently are, that can currently be determined by officers
that in future will have to go to committee.
So it isn't a question that everything,
or there's loads of things coming to officers
that have previously not been able to in the future.
And there is the tiers that you were talking about.
So the terminology is schedule one and schedule two.
Schedule one applications by law
cannot be determined by committee.
However, regardless of how many objections there are,
regardless of if parish councils are concerned about them.
And there's no call in process.
That is being abolished from the 31st of October.
The Schedule 2 applications may come to committee
if new statutory roles which will exist from the 31st of October.
So that's a member and an officer.
If those member and officer agree,
applications from Schedule 2 can come to committee in the future.
Thank you.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:10:55
Okay, Members, I have given this a really good hearing this evening, which I think was
important to give everyone the opportunity to have their say. There obviously is a bit
of rewording to be done around the one committee, and at this stage we are looking at keeping
keeping the two committee system in place. But obviously, as with everything in the further
review as time, as things progress, Members, with that in mind, are we happy to agree this
to go to full Council on the 22nd of October? Is that agreed? Thank you.
All right, going back to the agenda, I now need to go into private session to deal with

10 Any Other Business

minutes of the previous meeting.
Members, if we can read out the following notice.
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
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 100 in brackets a, in brackets 2.
And these are the minutes or Item 12 is the minutes from the previous meeting.
Members, are you happy for me to go into private session? I've agreed that the webcasting
has stopped.
Cllr Raymond Balcombe
District councillor for Rural East ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Raymond Balcombe
Cllr Will Kauffman
District councillor for Loughton Fairmead ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Will Kauffman
Vivienne Messenger
Democratic Services Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Vivienne Messenger
Cllr Martin Morris
District councillor for Waltham Abbey North ward
Labour Party
View profile Cllr Martin Morris
Cllr Stephen Murray
District councillor for Loughton Roding ward
Independent
View profile Cllr Stephen Murray
Cllr Kaz Rizvi
District councillor for Chigwell with Lambourne ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Kaz Rizvi
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
Matt Winslow
Planning Director
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Matt Winslow
Cllr Graham Wiskin
District councillor for Loughton St John's ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Graham Wiskin