To notify Members of recent Executive Decision(s) taken in the circumstances set out in the Council’s Constitution in:-

(a)   Rule 15 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules (Special Urgency); and/or

(b)   Rule 18(i) of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules (Call-in and Urgency); and/or

(c)   Rule 6(b) of the Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules.

It accordance with the requirements of Rule 16.2 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules and/or Rule 18(i) of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules and/or Rule 6(b) of the Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules, Council received a report of the Leader of the Council (A.1) which notified Members of recent Executive Decision(s) taken in the circumstances set out in Rule 15 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules and/or Rule 18(i) of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules.

(1)  Agreement to serve a counter notice in respect of a lease extension request

It was reported that, on 4 July 2025, the Assistant Director (Housing and Environment), on behalf of the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Planning and in view of the urgency of the issue concerned, and in accordance with Rule 18(i) of the Overview & Scrutiny Procedure Rules, had sought and subsequently obtained the Chairman of the Resources and Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s consent, that the Portfolio Holder’s decision relating to the serving of the counter notice in respect of a lease extension request, be exempted from the call-in procedure.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Planning’s decision was as follows:-

“To agree to the service of a section 45 Counter Notice by the Council’s Corporate Director (Law & Governance) on the terms set out in the Officer report and to authorise the Corporate Director (Operations and Delivery), in consultation with the Corporate Director (Law & Governance, to enter into negotiations to agree the premium payable and to formalise this lease extension, subject to such other terms as considered necessary.”

It was felt that any delay likely to be caused by the call-in process would have seriously prejudiced the Council’s interest as it would have prevented the Council from responding within the statutory time period to the service on the Council of a Section 42 Notice, under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (as amended) for the grant of a new lease for 8 Ashley Court, Ashley Road, Dovercourt, a former Council owned property. Failure to do so would have allowed the tenant to apply to Court for an Order granting them the new lease on the terms the tenant had proposed in the initial notice.

Following service of a counter notice, there was a period of two months for both parties to agree terms and the premium payable failing which the tenant had six months from the date of the counter notice to apply to a tribunal to determine terms and the premium payable.

(2)  Exemption from procurement rules to appoint Heaton Design and Engineering Ltd for the Clacton Leisure Centre Oil Boiler Replacement

It was also reported that, on 11 July 2025, the Head of Sport and Leisure, on behalf of the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Public Realm and in view of the urgency of the issue concerned, and in accordance with Access to Information Procedure Rule 25 had sought and obtained the Chairman of the Resources and Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s consent, that the Portfolio Holder’s decision in relation to the exemption from procurement rules to appoint Heaton Design and Engineering Ltd for the Clacton Leisure Centre Oil Replacement could be taken under the “Special Urgency” procedure.

It was recognised by all concerned that the appointment of a consultant by 13 July 2025 was critical to maintaining the project timeline and meeting the delivery milestones set out in the Salix funding agreement. Specifically, the consultant must be in place to initiate design work by 1 August 2025 and complete detailed designs by 1 October 2025. Without that appointment, the Council would be unable to progress the design phase in time, placing the project and the associated £1.2 million grant funding at significant risk and would lead to an increased financial liability on the Council.

Decisions taken under the Special Urgency procedure were automatically exempted from call-in.

It was moved by Councillor M E Stephenson and:-

RESOLVED that the contents of the report be noted.