Transcript

is hybrid and will be broadcast live to the internet or filmed and will be capable of repeated viewing or other such uses by third parties. Therefore, by participating in this meeting, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes. If any public speakers on teams do not wish to have their image recorded, they should ensure that their video settings throughout the meeting is turned off and set to audio only. Please be aware that if there are technical difficulties during this meeting, the meeting could result in being adjourned. Members, another simple reminder. When you're speaking, please turn your microphones on and when you're finished, turn your microphone off. Apologies for absence. None, Jen. Thank you. Any declarations of interest? None. Minutes of the last meeting for those who were present at that time. Can I take those as being agreed? Thank you. Before we go on to reports for portfolio holders, can I welcome the new members of the cabinet this evening? That's Councillor Paul Kesska, Councillor Kasparisvi and Councillor Tim Matthews. Welcome on board and I'm sure you're going to have a busy first meeting ahead of you. So that's good news. Are there any reports of portfolio holders? No? Okay. Public questions are request to address the cabinet. Any received? None received. Thank you. Thank you. The report of over-view and scrutiny. Councillor Boudreun, you're online this evening, but you haven't actually met yet for another week or so. Yes, that's right. I just had a pre meeting in this evening, but so we haven't elevated. So I will pull back after our first meeting next week on portfolio third July. Super. Sorry. That's wonderful. Sorry, Councillor Murray. Yes, I think I've got a relevant point for this part of the agenda. You did say the full council, we would get it as soon as possible. I think members would really benefit in the scrutiny function if we had a detailed list of what each portfolio holder is responsible for. Any time scale when we're getting that? The information is with Mr Woodall, who will be refining those details, double checking them, and then circulating the list of portfolio holder functions. Wonderful. If we move on to the first substantive report of the evening, item eight, the Planning Advisory Service Development Management Committee review. Councillor KESCA, welcome. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, in at the deep end here. However, what I have read the report in detail, and I will be making some comments, but I think it would be best if I left notes on this by our two senior planning officers who know much more about this than I do. Thank you very much, Councillor KESCA. Thank you, Councillor KESCA. I was going to take this if that's OK. So as stated by Councillor KESCA, this item relates to the PAS Committee review that was undertaken earlier this year. The review was undertaken in direct response to concerns around the quality of majors. So members may be aware that there are several performance measures for the Council that are drawn up by central government. And one of these is the quality of major applications. So this is an assessment of the number of major planning applications that are refused and subsequently allowed by the planning inspectorate. So the acceptable threshold for the level of appeals allowed is quite low, it's 10%. So the last assessment period that Epping Forest was at 9.8%, so very close to this threshold. So if the Council does go over to 10%, then there is a threat of special measures, which has several ramifications. This includes applicants for major applications have the option to apply directly to the sector state. So some of the issues with this is that the fee would go to the sector state. We lose out on the fee for that application, but actually we still have to do quite a significant amount of work. We also would suffer some some reputational damage as a result of that. So therefore PAS offered to provide support for this issue specifically with regards to reviewing our committee procedures and our delegated authority. So this review included interviews with key stakeholders. They watched some samples of various committee webcasts. They held a workshop with officers and certain members, and they reviewed our scheme of delegation, our committee reports and various minutes. They then provided the review document to us in March 2024, which is included in the agenda. Hopefully members have already read that. So this document lays out a number of conclusions and concerns and makes seven recommendations, which will lay down in fall on pages three to five of the document. However, I'll quickly summarize them. So recommendation one is to reduce the number of committees to preferably one, but a maximum of two between nine with between nine and 12 members on any one committee. Recommendation two is to review the scheme of delegation to ensure that only items that require scrutiny in public are considered by the committees. Recommendation three is to prepare a new set of protocols for the new committee arrangements. Recommendation four is to incorporate an opportunity for a legal officer to be present at all committee meetings. Recommendation five is to reintroduce a report on performance as a regular item on the committee agendas. Recommendation six is to implement a program of training for both officers and members. And recommendation seven is to schedule regular meetings between the committee chairman and the head of development management. Given the threat of special measures on this quality of major applications, plus the government is seeking to reduce the, or has, sorry, not seeking to, they have reduced the planning guarantee for non major applications. So that's the point at which if we don't make a decision, applicants can request their money back. The council do have to review the committee process and their delegated authority in line with the past report. Failure to make the necessary changes will put the council at significant risk. Therefore, officers are recommending that one, the cabinet accept the recommendations of the past report. Two, that delegated authority is given to lead officers and the portfolio holder to implement the required changes, engage in with relevant member committees as appropriate. And three, that cabinet agree to report in relevant planning KPIs to overview and scrutiny and planning committees. So as part of recommendation two, which is to implement the changes, officers are seeking to arrange an all member workshop on the evening of the 19th of June to discuss options for the required changes in order to agree what will proceed to the constitution working group in July and for council in August.

Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Courtney. Councillor Kesker. Thank you, Chairman. Well, I think clearly the cabinet wished to proceed with what we'd call updating our system. And I certainly have no problem with that. I do have a number of queries as to how it would work. But I think before we get to the 19th of June and the point at which we have an all member council meeting, which would take the form of a workshop rather than a more formal setting, there are a number of issues that would need to be crashed out. There are certain items amongst the scheme of delegation. There is what is meant by best use of officer time. There's clearly a two committee system would remove some of the more parochial elements to our decision making, but would also mean that some local knowledge would be lost and I can see perhaps more requirement for site visits. But that is something that can be managed and we can talk about that. And if the cabinet is happy to leave that to me and the senior planning officers, we can work our way through that. We do have a rather peculiar system as you're aware of referring items continuously upward, which no one else has. And it is, I did notice in the past report that they compared us to a number of other councils. But quite a lot of those councils are differently structured in that they're a place with one large town and some satellite, small villages and so on around it. We are not in that condition. We are a number of individual towns that make up the district. So I think we've got to be aware when we're putting together the details that this is, we are not the same as some of the other councils that they have said to us. I did, I did query one thing they said there that they said one of the chairman allowed clapping. Well, we don't allow clapping, but I'm not entirely sure how you can stop clapping. We don't have security officers standing behind everyone with a rubber truck, so if you clap we're going to do something to you, you have to regard their good sense. So I'm not entirely sure how we could be said to be allowing clapping. But we do have some lively meetings and we do have people who have strong views on a lot of planning issues and that's not going to change, even if we alter the structure. So if the cabinet is happy to leave the senior planning officers to put forward a number of suggestions with myself as portfolio holder, I will make sure that the cabinet is informed of any updates as we go forward. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor CASSIDY. I've got to Councillor Hollywood bread, first of all. Thank you, chairman, and thank you to Councillor CASSIDY for his first report to cabinet and to the officers as well. I can certainly see why this piece of work is necessary and important, but there's three key points I really wanted to make. I do believe that that local say is really pivotal in planning. I think sometimes there is the danger that that local say becomes political, but what I would hate to lose is the opportunity for both residents and Councillors to have an opportunity to reflect their local knowledge, whether that be as a representative to the committee or through membership. So I think retaining that level of local say is really important. Expertise is also really important. I think that goes for both members and officers as well. It's really key that all members do their training, and I think we've had a number of issues with that on planning. It's also really key, and I know officers are completely professional. The reports are absolutely right. I know I had a case that I've been really fighting for in Epid in Crow's Road, where there are a number of papers which weren't quite right. And actually, for us to put faith in officers, we need to make sure that the reports are entirely accurate. So there are two main points I wanted to make, and I think it is key that we make planning decisions efficiently and correctly. And it's right that the Constitution Committee and the Council will look at this, but please let's make sure that we have that local say and expertise balanced correctly. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Williamson. Thank you, Leader. As the previous portfolio holder, I've followed this all the way through, and I can see a lot of merit in the majority of this. I think it has to be the way to go, bearing in mind that we're a million overspent every year on this particular item, that there is the increase in fees which may bring some of it back, but we still have a big gap to close. And a lot of officers' time is spending getting ready for these meetings. I think it is absolutely the right way forward. On the local issue, we have to ensure that wall Councillors can speak at every application that comes before whatever committee structure we have. I think that's all I've got to say on this. I think it's a good piece of work, and it must be the way forward. Thank you very much. Councillor Janet Whitehouse. Thank you, Chair. I agree with the points that Councillor KESK was made. But I did just want to pick up a couple of points in the report. It says in the report that if there are two, I think it's a past report, if there are two planning committees, they should be based on agenda management rather than locality. I agree with Councillor KESK that the local knowledge is important, particularly in a district like this. So if we do have two committees, I really would hope it's on locality and not on the agenda items coming on locality and not agenda management. The criteria for bringing things to a committee are very vague in the report. I would like to know what items that require scrutiny in public really means. I'm sure that will be taken up by Councillor KESK or in the discussions he has. There was also a suggestion in the report that items that come to the committee should reflect the amount of objections or representations there's been. And that seemed a very important way of doing it, not just as it meets a certain paper criteria. So I hope that's going to be considered as well. The criteria of being of importance of the district is of course important, but sometimes there's a smaller application which has tremendous importance to the people in that locality or town. So there is a lot to be discussed. I hope we don't just take the report as it is and I'm sure we won't. Thank you. That's very helpful. Thank you. Councillor Pond. You sound wonderful, Councillor Pond. Can you hear me? Sorry. My view on this is very largely the same as the portfolio holders who already spoke. I said to the PAS when we had a seminar with them that I believe one of the long, and long held and strongest aspects of planning in ethnic forest is the local structure and the ability of people to make points firmly and completely, I hope, in respect of their local areas where they have the knowledge and particularly the micro, someone used her parochial, but the micro and local knowledge. And Janet Whitehouse, I hope, was absolutely correct when she said that something which is not a major scale, affecting the whole district, but really important to ward members and areas of the district. One particular town, or perhaps two towns, needs to be catered for, and so that, for that reason, I look forward to the meeting on the 19th of June where these items can be examined. But it did strike me that I think one committee is far too small, but two committees might be divided on the basis of major applications and minor applications. Nobody has said anything relevant against the decisions on minor applications. Major applications that is a development of particular space and a particular number of dwellings. I think could be dealt with by the existing district development committee, but I do agree that legal knowledge and legal advice is often welcome. But the decision is, after all, that of members as the local planning authority. And as inspectors very often say, when these things go to appeal, it is the right of members to judge planning applications on basis of the national planning policy, the local plan, and their local knowledge as a representative. So I'm content for this to go forward, particularly through the constitution working group and the member workshop. I do think we need to get aimed at smaller committees, the plan itself, for instance, with all members for the three towns sitting on it. It is absurdly large, and there's no reason in my view that we shouldn't go back to the system before 2009 when these were selected on places of a number of members, but not every member for an area. Leave it at that. I'm happy to see this going forward. Hope it can be modified. Thank you very much, Councillor Perks. Thank you. Just to, I won't repeat, because I think my colleagues and Councillor Hollywood bed has already made the point about local knowledge. I think one of the things that I'm pleased this report draws on, because I think we've sometimes been lacking on it, is the legal advice, really. Because though most members do training, some are much better at others at taking things on board, and I think we could have done with that sometimes. The other thing that I felt strongly about, and Mr Richardson knows this because I've made, told him, is that some officers are better than others at virtually presenting. And there isn't any substitute really for someone knowing what they're talking about as a planning officer being actually in the room, because sometimes the connection's bad, et cetera. And I would support the idea of two committees, like my colleague, Councillor Pond, as long as there is still the provision for ward members to bring something to consideration. I think that's an important part of a local Councillor's function. And some of those other authorities in the report don't all have the constraints of, you know, the tight green belt issues that, you know, often bring things to our committees. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Harks. Councillor Sumger. Thank you, Chairman. The recommendations, the seven recommendations, I think much of that's being covered. What I really wanted to hit home on is the legal advice that we get at planning committee meetings is really, really important. A lot of the times our officers are put in a situation where they're having to come up with excuses for reasons for refusal, and I sometimes cringe at that because it's a live meeting. So I welcome the recommendation there where it says the role of officers in recommendation three is really important because there's also the training element as well within these recommendations. Where members, like Councillor Holywoodbread said, is to actually learn exactly who does what during the meeting. So when members come up and say, could you tell us what reasons we could refuse that application? Well, actually, it's for you to come up with that reasons. The other thing that I think is really important is the site visits. I mean, how many times have we been asked for a site visit on the day and there's been people that have come along to the meeting to make representations? And then having to sort of go back home on the day itself. So I think the fact that there's a recommendation there saying that the chairman has a briefing and about arrangements for site visits, that should be done well before the meeting itself takes place. So all in all, I think it's a great, the seven recommendations are great. I can't see any reason why we can't move that forward. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor John Whitehouse. Thanks, Chairman. Yeah. There's lots of detailed points which I can pick up when we get to the, you know, more detail consideration of this. But the broader point I wanted to make was that the stimulus for this, according to the report, was that we came very close to designation because of the forms of major applications. It then leaps to saying there's a committee review. It doesn't actually link the coming close to designation to outcomes from planning committees. I mean, there may be good reasons to review planning committees, but there's no analysis of why we came close to designation. And of course, the planning process is more than members, you know, sitting around at planning committees, you know, it embraces, you know, the pre-application discussions with the board. The discussions with developers, it embraces particularly with appeals. The performance at the appeal itself, the preparation of the written statements, the presentation and use of specialists, appeals and so on and so forth. And that whole area of work and area of stuff the Council does that affects planning performance is utterly missing from this report. I mean, it's another bit of PAS review that covers that will be taken later. Or where's that bit of work being picked up, please? Thank you. Mr. Courtney, do you want to come in on that? I thought it was quite a comprehensive report with linkage there, but I think... I mean, that is the extent of the review. That is the report we've had back from PAS. So there's nothing else from PAS that we can share. I mean, I've, or me and Nigel have done a lot of data collection we've been looking at. Obviously, our quality of majors, we've been reviewing which ones got overturned and things like that. So certainly we can bring some of that to the workshop in June and sort of what those figures look like. So I have got some of that here, but probably not in a format to share at this stage, but certainly in June we can bring that. But we haven't had anything else from PAS. That's everything we've had. Thank you. Councillor Lee. Thank you, Chairman. I've listened to what everybody said and obviously local knowledge is really important. But I think one of the problems we don't get enough proper training so that we can understand exactly what's what. And also, often, we're in a meeting and we're told, no, you can't build on this because it's green belt or you can because it's brownfield. That is not clear as far as I'm aware that if something's been built there before and there's all concrete and everything, it can't be classed as green belt. But sometimes that's what it says in the report. So I don't understand that. So I'm sure if I don't, there's a lot of other people can't understand why one field is told it's green belt and one thing is told that it isn't. So I don't think that's very clear, but I think we need to have proper training. So that we can then make the decision and obviously we still need to be able to call something in because I haven't read the report. So I have to just say that's my own views. Thank you, Councillor Lee. Mr. Richardson. Yeah, I mean, the comment I would make, of course, the experts in the room, that's the planning officer. The planning officer's the qualified planner. Officer's written the report. The recommendations in there and the information's in there as well. But I do take on board what was said about perhaps officers need requiring some training as well. I mean, let's be honest, a lot of planning officers are very daunting to be here presenting and speaking in front of members. You feel like you're in court here. So a lot of them do feel quite nervous. Of course, that over a period of time, you gain more confidence, so I think it's good that we do allow officers to present. But I agree. That's part of the recommendation, isn't it, to implement training for officers as well as members. And it may well be we need perhaps some specific little training chunks or bite-sized training on Greenbelt as Councillor Lee is referred to. And that may be something we could do as officers, but I think that would be benefit all around. Absolutely. Thank you very much for that, Mr. Richardson. Councillor Casket, anything you'd like to add on final comments? I don't think so, thank you Chairman. I've made a note of the points raised by Councillors, although I notice Councillor Jones has still like to add something. And I will take those forward into my discussions with officers and have them hopefully presented in a useful way when we get to the 19th of June. Thank you. Councillor Jones. Thank you. Sorry about that. And I agree with everything that's been said. I actually read the report. I found it actually quite interesting. And I think this is an opportunity really for ourselves to really look at our own systems. Both from an officer and member point of view. Looking towards the training. I just wonder if there could be some combined training so that I know it's difficult and I can see Mr. Richardson's face. But possibly if the officers worked alongside us as members, we may not be quite so intimidating when it comes to meetings. I fully appreciate it. It is difficult. I would however, that sometimes members find the whole thing quite intimidating as well. So perhaps some workshops training where officers could attend as well and see us as people rather than the Councillors might be a way forward. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, members. I think that was a useful airing of this report. And I think that was really important to do. Most importantly is that when we come to the special members workshop, I want it to be treated like a full council arrangement for attendance. I think it's really as important as training for members to be there to have their initial faults heard as we've heard this evening from the members present. So I've asked that to be very well publicised amongst members to make sure we get the best attendance possible. Then it will come down to the Constitution Working Group to get the nuts and bolts of the new arrangements right. The most important thing is we want to keep control of our planning because no one would thank us if we lost control of it. So members, I'm going to take the recommendations individually. In particular, the first one, the cabinet accepts the recommendations of the past report. Can I take that as being agreed? Thank you. The second recommendation, the cabinet agreed to dedicate authority to lead officers together with the portfolio holder to implement required changes engaging with relevant member committees as appropriate as we've set out this evening. Is that agreed? Thank you. And then item three, the cabinet agrees to the reporting of relevant associated planning KPIs to overview and scrutiny and planning committees for monitoring purposes. Can we take that as being agreed as well? Thank you all very much. And we look forward to moving that quite quickly. I think it's very important that we have the new committees in place, Mr. Richardson. Really quick. We didn't mention this, but the planning advisory service would come along to that workshop as well. Yeah. Even more reason why we need to do that. But that's even more reason why we need to be widely publicised and to make sure members are present. In fact, the good thing is we've got most of the major groups represented here this evening. So it'd be good if they can make sure that their members do attend. So PAS can see that we're taking this seriously as well. Thank you all very much. If we move on to the next item, which is item nine, the east of Harlow master planning guidance supplementary planning document. Councillor Williamson. It's me. Oh, it's not. It's still you. It's still you. [INAUDIBLE] Apologies for that. [INAUDIBLE] That's the problem. Okay. So the east of Harlow master planning guidance supplementary planning document, which is referred to as the SPD. The east of Harlow master plan site identified in a local plan allocated 750 homes in Epping and 2,600 homes in the Harlow districts. These homes are accompanied by key infrastructure such as the New Princess Alexander hospital, three schools, two local centres, primary health care provision, green public spaces and a sustainable transport corridor. The document provides guidance for a developer master plan on all of these important pieces of infrastructure, along with guidance on design and stewardship. This is to ensure that the forthcoming master plan reflects the vision shared by the Garden Town partners. In March 2023, it was agreed that the document should be adopted as a supplementary planning document by Harlow and Epping Councils. And the recommendations are, one, public consultation. Yes, report notes the process undertaken from the public consultation on the SPD between July and October in 2023. And this is set out in detail in the consultation statement. A number of virtual and in-person events were held with the public land owners and statutory consultees and a dedicated website provided a platform for feedback. Public meetings in Sheeran and in Churchgate Street were packed and 157 individuals and organisations responded to the consultation. Recommendation two is the adoption of the SPD. The second recommendation is to agree that the SPD is formally adopted. This will ensure that guidance has weight as a material planning consideration to ensure the developer prepares a master plan that reflects the HGGT's partners vision. And the SPD has been subject to extensive review and scrutiny by the District Council partners. The public land owners and key stakeholders has been reviewed by the Council's Quality Review Panel and a document adheres to national regulations governing how the SPD should be written. The final document is attached to this report along with the consultation statement and recommendation three concerns minor amendments. The third recommendation is to agree that planning services director in consultation with the relevant portfolio holder should be able to make minor amendments to the document prior to publication. So in summary, the master plan guidance is significant for the area in that it puts the principles and views of partner councils and the residents forward first before a developer drafts a master plan. In doing so, a robust basis for master planning. This important site has commenced where partners will aim to dialogue with developers with agreed principles. This should speed the planning process and delivery of the much needed homes and supporting infrastructure that the district needs. Thank you. Thank you. Members, any questions? Okay, in that case, I'll go straight to recommendations. Are we happy to agree? Great. Thank you. Now, this is where we test a new cabinet layout. As Councillor Murray was mentioning earlier, who does what? Now, I'm sure item 10, the South Epping Strategic Master Plan framework is Councillor Williamson. I agree. Thank you, Leader. This report is to bring the draft South Epping Master Plan area strategic master plan framework and design code to cabinet for approval of formal consultation. The consultation will run over six weeks from mid-June to provide the public a statutory consultees with ample time to review and comment. In line with the FDC's Statement of Community Involvement, there has been informal consultation in early 2024 with Epping Town Council and members. The development in response to the adopted local plan policy P1 Epping, this policy requires that a strategic master plan framework is drawn up for the site allocations. The local plan also sets out the design codes are to be produced, which are called with the principles established by strategic master plan frameworks. The South Epping Master Plan area is allocated for a minimum 450 homes, a primary school, community space, a suitable alternative natural green space or saying, a bridge over the central line linking the two sites and appropriate provision of health facilities. Pressure on local medical services is well understood and discussions are ongoing within HS Hartfordshire and West Essex Integrated Care Board to define whether medical vision will be provided onsite or if contributions to offsite medical vision will be most appropriate. The local plan sets out a guide for the on and offsite infrastructure requirements for the site in the infrastructure delivery plan, detailed transport assessments will be drawn up and accompany forthcoming planning applications to define precisely what infrastructure upgrades will be required to mitigate impacts to surrounding residents. The SMF and design code have been developed by a developer and Saltyum in collaboration with the FDC and Essex County Council officers as part of our planning performance agreement process. Both the SMF and the design code have each been reviewed by the council's quality review panel. Natural England have been engaged to review the design of the saying. All mine amendments including further accessibility requirements are requested to be able to be authorized by the planning services director in conjunction with myself or relevant portfolio. That's the update. I just really want us to buy a JCP and start digging and start building some of these things. Thank you very much, Councillor WINFORD. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you to Councillor Williamson for that report. I'm happy to endorse the recommendations within it to go out to consultation. I think it must be stressed that it is very much about consultation. As an EPIN Councillor, I've long had a number of reservations around this site and concerns which I really think need to be looked into and really address this part of that consultation. For me, the key one is around the infrastructure piece, particularly around healthcare services and GP services and I think the provision of that healthcare facility on site is particularly important. From a county council perspective, I think the highways issues that this could bring also something that the developers need to keep a keen eye on. Anyone who goes down IV chimneys, particularly at open or closing time, will know it's absolute chaos down there and this will add extra pressure. So I would urge the developers to make sure that they keep that in mind when putting forward final proposals. But I think this is a really good opportunity for residents to have their say on something that's embedded in the local plan and agreed is coming and make sure it's right for the community. Which exists. It must be remembered this part of EPIN is quite a long way from the high street itself and therefore transport connections are also going to be vital as well. But I do approve of going out consultation, but I have long had reservations and I think there's still some work to do in in those out. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Chairman. I'm not going to comment on the actual development itself, but I do agree with everything that Council with Fred has just said about the infrastructure, their my concerns as well. But this is about consultation and I just wanted to say how pleased I am that attention has been paid to the need to people who are not on social media and internet and so forth. Residents have said that they had hoped that there would be leaflets and so forth dropping through their doors. So I'm very pleased to see that there is going to be this newsletter for hope is imprint, not just on the internet. And they just seem to take into account people who don't have access to these things. So just want to say that. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Whitehouse. Councillor John Whitehouse. Yes, clearly this took a long history. I mean, we voted on it at the local planning committee, a local planning Council meeting December 2017, went to inquiry about it as pleased to listen to some of the concerns we raised, but not all of them. I do have concerns at the way the consultation pushes the envelope a bit about what was originally in the local plan and what was in the, and it's very important in as we've seen the developments where the local plan says that something should be delivered or where something is demonstrated as being needed to mitigate the impact of development. That actually is delivered in a way that meets the need of the wider community. So I will be encouraging people to take part in the consultation, I'll take part in it myself. And I hope that results in the issues expressed and being listened to and addressed. Thanks. Thank you. Any other members? No? Okay. Councillor Pond. Councillor Pond, you're still on mute. Halfway through your speech. I don't know what happens there. I just want you to make two or three points in concurrence with Councillor Holland's bread and Councillor's white house about the need for adequate infrastructure, road infrastructure, and pedestrian and cycling infrastructure in conjunction with this development. But I also want to talk about the rail infrastructure in that this scheme involves a bridge across the central line. And I wanted to put on the two ends here that consideration is given to making the rail loading gauge. Main line, knowing that rail and tube, because of the future possibility of adapting the central line for other purposes and stop with much greater capacity. But on the whole, the consultation I think proposes is good, a good one, and it needs to be done properly. Thank you very much, Councillor Pond. Councillor Williamson, did you want to respond at all? No, I think it's a very valid point that Councillor Pond raised, and we'll make sure we look into it. Thank you. Okay. That being the case. Can we agree the recommendation? Great. Thank you. Moving on to item 11, integration of Eppin Library into Eppin Forest District Council's civic offices. Councillor Holly Whippered. Thank you, Chair. I'm almost there to be by surprise then. This is a report that's a real pleasure to bring forward, and something that's been a long time in the making, looking at bringing Eppin Library into the civic offices. And the reason I think this is such a good idea is because this is the civic offices, it's a community hub. We have so many different organisations here, whether it be citizens, advice, bureau, voluntary action, housing advice. And actually, modern libraries are for people to be able to use all community facilities. The principal of bringing the library here brings everything together and will make the district council much more of a hub. So, I'm really pleased to bring forward this proposal today. I actually think this is a fantastic location just next to Eppin High Street, which is walked by on a daily basis by many Eppin residents, including myself. I think it will very much open up the civic offices and actually make some of those services which I refer to better use by residents. But this, as a report states, is an opportunity for further consultation and conversations with the county council. And I hope that members can agree to it today. Thank you. Members. Councillor JOHN WILHES. Thank you. Yes, another issue that we discussed at the December 2017 local plan meeting when originally there's no guarantee that if it disappeared from St John's Road, it would reappear somewhere else in Eppin. I mean, I don't have strong views at which end of the High Street, it should be an important thing, is it is close to the High Street, easily accessible. And re-provides or improves on what's available at the current library. And I'm not entirely convinced it's got the same sort of area, but that's something I hope will be looked at as the project progresses. I wanted to ask two things. First of all, there's a danger when you co-locate a service, the identity sort of gets lost a bit, particularly it's inside a building. You need to be clear from the outside, it's a library and it's open to people to come into and take advantage of. We've seen it dead in college where co-locating a library has made it sort of more difficult to access, and that's partly due to things like signage from the outside. It's not obvious there's a library inside that building. And the other issue is about the other services that are based in the library building at St John's Road. There's references to the registration service in the report, but there's things like the Granville's Children's Hubs and so forth, and that building as well, and what's the proposals for that. Thank you. Councillor Janet Whitehouse and then we'll mop up afterwards. I thought when I first read the report that I said there was a plan attached, but there isn't. I wonder if you could provide us with a plan or perhaps just briefly tell us now exactly which bits are going to be used and what for, because it's not clear from the report. Councillor Holyday. Thank you, Chairman, and I believe there is a plan within the documentation. I'll pick up on a few of those points if I may. I actually, to declare a former interest, I was once a deputy for libraries' ethics, and I did have the pleasure of touring the county and seeing different libraries. Actually, I think a really good example to compare this to is over in Baseldon, where they thought the citizens' advice, bureau and library into an old bank building. And what this has really done is increased football because people are going to services for two reasons and going back to Councillor John Whitehouse's point. Actually, having the building here with adequate signage, which I think is absolutely vital, is a way of bringing in more people to the building. And I would stress we do need good signage outside the building throughout the town directing people in the right direction. In relation to Councillor Whitehouse's point on where it would be, it would be in the circle space at the front of the building downstairs, which is currently the existing community hub. So there would be some shifting of the locations of some of our other voluntary and community partners, but obviously with that linkage still very much there. In terms of other services, I still believe they're still in negotiation with the registrars and also the children's services as well. I don't know if Jen Gordon wants to call on that further. Jen. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, we are talking to the library about all of the other services that are being provided within the library space at the moment, and there are some options that we can talk about for them to also come into the building. And as Councillor Witt-Bred said, the library is going to be located all the place, or if the library should be located in the whole of that ground floor. So we will incorporate the community hub and the library together with our welcome desk. So it will be very obvious as you come into the building that that is also a library. Thank you, Councillor Murray. So I just wanted to clarify, Chairman, I realise this is more of an epic issue. We've had our own disaster in Loudon, as regards our library, because our county has given its own planning permission for something that's absolutely deplorable. That's another issue. This is a done deal then, and really the cabinet recommendations are basically the implementation of the detail. So it's not a discussion of principle about whether this is a good idea, where if we take it further tonight, we're basically saying, yes, we're going to do it, and it's just a discussion of looking at the details of how we do it. Is that my understanding of the recommendations and the report? Thank you, Councillor Murray. Sure, Councillor Wicke will come back in a moment, but this is about strategic intent. This is not an agreement that is done as a done deal as such. There's still ongoing negotiations, as you just heard, around the registrars and around other services as well. What it's about is our intent, which has been there for a long time to bring the library into this building and make this a vibrant hub for the community building on the uses. In the modern world, we are going to end up with a lot more one estate, where we're going to have partner organisations with us in the same buildings, and it's a fact of life. I mean, whether you're in health or your county council with a library, you'll see different arrangements across the county. In fact, if you look over in Pepsi at the moment, where they're looking to do something with the health authority, there's an awful lot of things going on. But the most important thing is to make public buildings efficient and reduce footprint for carbon issues as well. And that's what we should be doing. But this is a strategic intent, a direction of travel. It's not the final decision. And I think that needs to be very clear here this evening. Councillor POND. Thank you. I beg to take an interest, Chairman, as an honoree fellow of the Chartered Institute of Library and some Information Professionals on the one hand, and the County Councilor on the other hand. I think the proposal as aiming in a strategic direction is right. You've said that maximizing the use and efficiency of public buildings is very good, both on a financial and carbon ground. So I approve of it. And it also occurs to me that it might be a means of getting really an extremely active building and it's the John's road. It's an alternative use of redevelopment to be found for it. But I recognise the fact that Councillor JOHN MACK. And it's quite opposite and might have different views. I think Councillor JOHN MACK was right when you said there are concerns about the amount of space which is to be pruned up. But of course, there is plenty of space in the civic offices. And if it meant repatriating something for the back room uses of the County Council from the private tenant by negotiation, I would think that's quite appropriate. It is a public building. I just point out that the new question that Councillor MACK has, though, Jay Bryce, that we've dealt with at the Epidorus College site, and Deb is slightly affected by the fact that there is an extremely busy road and complicated road junction just outside of it, which precludes the use as a public library, which doesn't apply to any net. So on the whole, I welcome this initiative. We will be subject to discussion, details, but I think it's on the right lines. Thank you very much, Councillor POND. And you're quite correct, quite correctly. May John, a declaration of interest as a County Councillor. And of course, I should do likewise alongside Councillor Holywick. And Councillor Holywick, you wanted to speak. Thank you, Chairman. And I just really wanted to agree with the reflections of Councillor POND. I think what a point that is really important to stress. Libraries aren't about square footage, they're about usage, particularly in terms of how libraries operate nowadays. It's not about what books you have in physically and stop things can be brought in very quickly, stock can be moved around. The internet can be used in different ways. And of course, people use libraries in different ways, whether it be for rhyme time with their children or to use the internet or get advice of various different services. So, for me, having a library at the core of the community is absolutely vital, but it's not about how big it is, it's about how well used it is. So, I think this project is really exciting for that very reason. I think it's got the potential to mean that Eppin Library in a new form will be better used by all sections of our community. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor JEAN LEE. Thank you. I've just got one question. Will it be open on Saturday? Because our library in Mortimerby is from 9 to 5 and it's so busy and this building wouldn't normally be open on a Saturday, would it? Councillor Holyday. I believe it's policy for Essex libraries to be open on a Saturday and I hope that Eppin Library would follow soon. Thank you. Councillor SONGA. Thank you, Chairman. I think I'll welcome these recommendations as well. If you think about what's happening at the moment, how we all work, it's a smart way of working, having a library service within near the community hub means that if somebody's coming, let's say, to use the library and they need to have the services off, another community like the CAB or something, it's there on the doorstep. They haven't got to find it. It's there and we're working more smarter and also obviously having it under one roof in terms of resources as well and the costings as well that all come into play. So all in all, I think it's a good report. Yeah, let's move it forward. Good. Thank you very much. Members, we've had a good airing of this report. You've got a couple of recommendations there. Can I take those as being agreed? Agreed. Thank you. Item 12, round hills, purchase of 28 units from Qualys. Councillor BEDFORD. Thank you, Chairman. Briefly, I'm new to this portfolio as well as Councillor CASSco and other Councillors. But I'd just like to say that the recommendation here is the cabinet is to agree EFDC by 28 homes on completion at round hills or from happy at a cost that recognises the current economic circumstances in relation to land value and construction costs. One is being in recognition of the units being of strategic importance to EFDC and meet the needs of corporate objective, stronger place and stronger communities. If there's any questions, I should defer these to the school and sitting at the end. Thank you. Members, we've talked before you. I love a part of our Council House Building Program, which is important to our communities. Everyone's very quiet. Councillor John Whitehouse. So I did pick up on that comment about an accost which reflects the current commercial. Are we talking about Qualys needs the money so we're paying over the odds for it? Are we talking about Qualys is making a sort of semi-stress purchase? So we're paying less for the market value for it or we're getting an independent valuation. Someone just reflects the construction costs and what the effort is about. I wasn't quite sure what you meant or how to interpret what you said. Councillor interjecting. Yes, thank you, Chairman. So when we look at Council House Bill developments, we put them through a valuation tool. It is only a tool and it gives you an indicative value. That's come in slightly less than the cost of constructing the 28 homes. So that's the difference. Great. Everyone else is very quiet. Members, can we take this as being agreed? Agreed. Thank you. We then move on to item 13, North Ford Airfield, new control tower stroke fire station development and post-Google land cell obligations. No. Councillor MACK, your first report. Thank you, Chairman. I'm very pleased to bring this report to members this evening. I think all members would agree with myself that actually the aviation activities at Northfield Airfield is not only just part of the identity of Northfield, but also the identity of this whole district. So I think ensuring the future of the aviation activities on this site is critical. I see following the sale of the land to Google, the control tower is currently located in that area. So we will be looking to, the recommendations before us, are to approve funding for a total of just over 5.7 million to allow us to build a new tower and fire service combined building. And to kit it out with state-of-the-art facilities, I was quite alarmed to hear about the age of some of the facilities currently being used in the tower. And when looking to secure the future of the aviation activities at Northfield, I think this investment is going to really shore up that future. And obviously, there is associated works with that. And the details are all listed in the report. I'd be happy to take any questions on that. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor MACK, members. Any questions? Councillor BIDford. I think this is an excellent report bringing forward something, which demonstrates the Council is actually investing in Northfield Airfield. There's been a lot of talk in the past of what's going on about housing, et cetera. This is the Council committing to actually investing in its infrastructure that it actually owns. And we do need the fire station there. Without the fire station in the control tower, we wouldn't have the flying there. If we didn't have the flying, it would be turned into something else. Residents wanted flying. This is our commitment to you as the residents of Northfield, that you actually are getting investment in the area. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Murray. Thank you, Chairman. I think this is something that's worth supporting. Flying in Northfield is important that we keep it. As the Northfield said, it's an important part of our identity and our history. I welcome these proposals. I did say at full council that I would be keeping a special eye on Councillor MAFU's. As a new cabinet member, he's made a very good start. I'm tempted to say he's made a flying start. Very good, Councillor Murray. Members, if there's no of it, sorry, Councillor Patel. Hi, just a really quick one, actually. I do welcome this report and I think it's brilliant that we're progressing it and having the new control tower. Just for the sake of new members that might be listening as well. Sometimes, just as in the new Councillors, it seems like cabinet is talking less on all the reports, but that's because just want to highlight that we've had cabinet briefing before and we would have raised a lot of our questions beforehand as well. Because I've heard sometimes people say, oh, there's no questions amongst members and that's really not the case. We've done our questions and scrutiny beforehand as well, so I just wanted to highlight that. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Patel. Yes, members have done this numerous times. Councillor Morris, welcome. Hi, yeah. So, just a quick question on that. So, the total cost associated with is about 850,000. I wasn't quite clear, that's covered by the lease for, you've given to Google for the data centre. Is that how it's been paid for? Councillor Befias. In terms of the breakdown of that, I am not fully aware and I may lean on Councillor Whitbread with that, or our officer don't really give you that breakdown. We have got the breakdown of each section in furthering the report, but actually in terms of the money coming in, I believe that is all covered from Google. I believe that'd be correct. Mr Good, are you happy with that response? I am. The cost of that will be the report's quite clear, it says, from the capital we see from Google. Yes. So, that's quite clear. Obviously, coming from the Google monies will be the work onto the airfield. Okay, members, you've got recommendations there. Can I take those as agreed as well? Item 14, quality of accounts report year four. Councillor Mathews. Thank you, Chairman. And as with Northfield in relation to Councillor Murray's comment, I will endeavour to keep flying. If I am through this report, I suspect I will have a few more questions on this one than my last report. Members, I bring this report forward as an update on callist's performance. I hope members have read all the report. There's a lot of detail in there, so I don't plan on covering every single point on there. The key concern is obviously with the revaluation of the assets. I think members will understand this is a concern that everyone is facing around the country. We've seen the economic downturn both nationally and globally. Callist is not immune from this, and it's our duty as the Council to very much ensure we're monitoring this. And we're assessing performance every available opportunity. And we're also looking at working with callist to see the direction of travel to ensure that we are preserving our risk and limiting our exposure wherever possible, while also ensuring that callist moves forward and continues to deliver the services they deliver to us and also generating the income that we receive through the loans and through their development. I'm happy to take any questions on that. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Matthews. Members. Councillor JOHN WATTS. My last question. Yeah, thanks for that. I suppose the key thing in this sort of short median term for the Council is whether any proposals to change the repayment schedules from callists or whether they will be maintained as originally agreed. Councillor Matthews. Thank you, Councillor WATTS. I'm going to shortly enter in this role. I have gone to officers at callist and at EFDC and requested a full breakdown. And I have increased their workload significantly because I'd like members to be assured that I'm a person who very much likes to see the detail and look at all options based on that. So I have requested the report to give us a full breakdown on the position of where we are in terms of our loan and where the repayments will be. And then we will look to make a decision on that so I can report back on that once I've got all that information to hand. Thank you very much, Councillor Matthews. Members, we've got recommendations. Sorry, Councillor Morris. I did have a question. On the accounts that we've got here, you've got the EFDC net debt is about 80 and the total assets of callist are about 70. So it just looks like there's about 10 million unsecured there. Is that correct and if so, how is it being managed? There's a factual statement in here about what would happen if anything went wrong. But how is that risk being managed? Thanks. Yes, thank you. And yes, very correct. That is the current position we find ourselves in. We've really experienced a sort of 6 million reduction in the valuation of the assets, which has really kind of hit us. And as mentioned previously, that's reflective around the nation and globally. So that is an issue that when faced with an issue like that, the key component is cash flow and understanding that we've got the cash flow to sustain this position we're in. And again, this is another report of our officers to provide to me, which has done so already. And I'm confident with the cash flow position we're actually in with the investments that have been made. The assets that have been purchased and the income that that is generating, we are in a secure position. Obviously, we make no bones about it. It's not the most desirable position to be in and we will endeavour to move about that. Move away from that position. I've had several meetings already with quality officers to give direction on where I think that should go. And yeah, the reassuring factor for me was the fact that the cash flow is there to support the position we're in. I hope that answers that. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Mathews. Members, can we agree with that recommendation attached to this report? Great. Thank you. We then move on to any other business, which leads us to item 15, which is the quarter four budget monitoring report 2324, Councillor Hollywood, Brad. Thank you, Chairman. And before I start on the report, I just wanted to say a few comments as I'm new to this role. And thank Councillor Philip for his work before me. And also to say that I'm looking forward to working with Councillor Mathews closely as our roles are very intertwined. And actually over the last couple of weeks with conversations with Andrew and officers, I can see the big challenges we have ahead. Of course, we want to continue to keep tax as low as possible and protect the services which are important to our residents. But also looking and managing risk is going to be of vital importance and ensuring full transparency, which is obviously there. But in this role, I want to make sure I am fully transparent as all the papers are as well. And I think we need to acknowledge this is a difficult time financially for Councillors up and down the country. You can see in this report which I'm about to present that we have many challenges ahead of us. And actually we know that there are no easy answers. I welcomed Councillor Philip's collaborative approach last year with members and with scrutiny. And I think it's important that we continue in that vein when looking to make difficult decisions moving forward. I also wanted to note that the statement of accounts is now published, which is good news and I'm sure you will be reading it eagerly as well. So just onto the budget over term report this evening for quarter four. You'll see in part it's good news and we all like good news. There's almost a million pound underspend which can be moved into our reserves and put us into a much more secure position there with five million pound in the general fund reserve account now, which is a million pound over the required amount. So that's good news and that's come for a number of reasons with the Google transaction at Northfield obviously being helpful. Also with a surplus from business rates and various other underspends including on consultants which I thought was a good thing and a move in the right direction as well. But obviously we do have some key issues and challenges ahead of us. The big headline one being around planning and development with obviously less planning applications than we would have hoped. We're on about 48% less than we would have expected and there is a real challenge there moving forward into the future actually reflecting on some of the issues that we looked at in that report early this evening around planning. We've also got some challenges around housing benefit over payment and with QALIS bringing in less than expected as well. So overall this report this evening is good news. I think that we can be confident that we're in a more comfortable position than we might have hoped and that's a well composition to be in in this new role. But we do have some challenges that we need to address and stay on top of. I'm happy to take any questions and I'm sure that Andrew and Chris will also thank you. Thank you. Members, out to the figures before you. Better position than we could have hoped for which shows good stewardship of the Council's finances over the year. Everyone's very quiet and can I congratulate Chris from getting the accounts done today. That's really positive and very timely, very timely. So thank you very much for that. That's good news. I can't believe no one's got any questions on the accounts. Councillor BROOKS. It's sort of not quite on the accounts exactly, but it's related to Councillor Hollywood Bread's resume. And she may need the support of Mr. Richardson at the back row there. I'm assuming that the planning applications have not come in in the way that we'd hoped because things are difficult for the construction industry because of costs. Is that? Sorry, Councillor WIPRAID, then Mr. Richardson. Thank you. I will pass to Mr. Richardson. But I think that the state of the economy nationally and some of the challenges we're facing there, particularly on cost of building, we saw it ourselves, some of the Council House building programs. I'm sure that is a factor, but I will let Mr. Richardson answer that, thank you. To be honest, I haven't got much more to add then, but that would seem to be the case. I mean, we do a number of pre-planning application submissions that we receive, and we're being told by developers, yeah, you're planning application. We're going to submit our planning application shortly, but yeah, right, it seems to be taking longer. They're out there, it's just when are they going to come in? Thank you. Mr. Small. Thank you, just to add a little bit more really. I suppose it's twofold. Partly, we anticipated that the planning applications would increase after we adopted the local plan, and we upped the budget to reflect that, and then at the same time, the economy took a downturn, and we saw a dramatic decrease in the number of applications coming in really. And that's what's largely resulted in the shortfall in planning income. We were aware of this when we put the budget together for 24/25, and so we've reduced the forecast for expected income in the current year. Off-setting that is the government's increase in planning fees, which we hope together. We'll make sure that we come back online in terms of our planning income forecast for the current year. Thank you very much. Councillor SUNGA. Thank you. Can we just have some clarification? On the planning application, the pre-app advice fees. I'm assuming that we have fees for pre-app advice. Have they gone up? Have you increased them at all, Mr. Richardson? Yeah, we increase them every financial year. So we do look at what other councils are charging out there. So, yes, we have increased the fees. And we also do the planning performance agreements, which you've probably heard us refer to PPA's. Again, we've increased the fees in that. I want to say that's not the reason why it's put in developers off from submitting applications. I don't think that's the reason. I think, Councillors, as you're fully aware, it's the place where we are in the economy at the present time. And developers have been very reluctant to push forward on major developments in particular, which is part of the problem. And, of course, you can only predict in a budget. It's what happens during the year. I think the good news is for us is that inflation is now within normal levels, around 2.3%. And, of course, whilst interest rates are still at a high at 5.25% for the world that we've currently been living in, it is hoped that later in the summer, maybe in the autumn, they will start to fall, which would then help the economy, and we'll start to see those planning applications flowing at that time. Councillor MARRIE. Yeah, I mean, I think it's tempted to remind—it's good to end the meeting by reminding people that every news broadcast we're hearing in the moment, we're told that there's a plan and it's working. Councillor MARRIE. There's a plan and it's working. But I think the good news is here in Epping Forest, we had a plan, it's worked, and we're moving forward. So, you know, I can't let that one pass without saying that that's the situation. Members, we've got five recommendations on this report. It is an important financial report, it's the out-turn figures for the year. Can I take those recommendations as being agreed? Councillor interjecting. And can I also minute our thanks to our finance team. They're a small in number and they do a brilliant job, and Chris, again, congratulations on getting those accounts done today, and if we can just minute that as well. It's really helpful. I know how busy our finance team are, and they give support to Colchester as well as part of our shared work, and so I'm really pleased with that. That's the pub. Right, that's been the case, we've reached the end of the meeting. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.