The local authorityCouncil · district · England · 1 of 164 councils (district)

Epping Forest.

Conservative and Unionist Party-controlled district. £15m net revenue. 18 wards across 3 parliamentary constituencies.

Typedistrict
Seats40 councillors · 18 wards
Last election7 May 2026
Net revenue · 2025-26
£15m
Core spending power (MHCLG)
Band-D bill
£2,187
For the council slice (incl. precepts)
Composition
17/40
Conservative and Unionist Party 43%
Westminster
3
constituencies overlap · 1 MP party
Dispatch
31 May 2026

Conservative and Unionist Party chamber, Conservative and Unionist Party MPs.

Epping Forest is a district controlled by Conservative and Unionist Party (17 of 40 seats). Net revenue is £15m for 2025-26. It covers 18 wards spanning 3 parliamentary constituencies.

§ 01Composition.40 seats · last contested 7 May 2026

Who sits in the chamber.

Con 17Ref 11LD 6Independent Loughton Residents Association 5Lab 1

Conservative and Unionist Party 43% · last contested 7 May 2026

Councillors — the people.

CouncillorWardElected
James SmallRefBuckhurst Hill East Whitebridge2026
Barbara CohenIndBuckhurst Hill East Whitebridge2024
Rose BrookesIndBuckhurst Hill East Whitebridge2024
Smruti PatelConBuckhurst Hill West2026
Darshan Singh SungerConChigwell With Lambourne2026
Craig James John McCannConChigwell With Lambourne2024
Kaz RizviConChigwell With Lambourne2024
Karen BatleyRefEpping East2026
Janet Hilda WhitehouseLDEpping East2024
Jon WhitehouseLDEpping East2024
Holly WhitbreadConEpping West Rural2026
Mandy GeorgeLDEpping West Rural2024
Showing 12 of 40·All 40 councillors
§ 02Revenue mix & Band-D bill.MHCLG — Final LGFS 2025-26 Core Spending Power table

Where revenue comes from.

62%
Council tax
£9.6m · median 61%
26%
Central grants
£3.9m · median 26%
12%
Business rates
£1.9m · median 11%

Revenue mix is close to the councils (district) median: 62% council tax, 26% central grants.

Source · MHCLG — Final LGFS 2025-26 Core Spending Power table · derived (CT exact; grants/rates split from SFA baseline)

Band-D bill.

Council slice£172
County / upper-tier£1,580
Police£260
Fire & rescue£88
GLA precept£0
Parish average£87
Total Band-D£2,187

Parish precepts apply on top, vary by parish

For household tax breakdown

Use the income slider on My place to see income tax, NI, VAT and council tax against your earnings.

§ 03Service spend, ranked against peers.7 buckets · vs 163 other councils (district)

How does Epping Forest split its revenue across services, compared with peer councils (district)-class councils? Each row is one of the ten standard service buckets. The vertical line at the centre is the cohort median share; the coloured square is where this council sits. Squares to the right of centre mean a bigger share of revenue than the median peer; to the left, a smaller share.

Waste & Recycling47.8% of net spend · cohort median 32%
14 of 158+49% vs median
Planning & Economic Development19.4% of net spend · cohort median 14%
41 of 158+34% vs median
Housing & Homelessness13.5% of net spend · cohort median 14%
85 of 158-4% vs median
Corporate & Central10.6% of net spend · cohort median 27%
151 of 158-60% vs median
Culture & Leisure7.8% of net spend · cohort median 13%
126 of 158-42% vs median
Public Health0.6% of net spend · cohort median 0%
13 of 38+41% vs median
Highways & Transport0.3% of net spend · cohort median -2%
40 of 158
How to read these bars

The subtitle on each row (“X% of net spend”) is what share of this council’s revenue goes to that service. The rank (“15 of 61”) is where this council sits within the cohort, sorted by that share descending. The delta (“+26% vs median”) is a relative reading: the council allocates 26% more of its revenue to that service than the median peer would. A small absolute difference can still be a big relative one.

Higher share doesn’t mean waste — it can reflect demographic need (more older residents), rurality, or a policy choice (e.g. keeping a service in-house). Lower share doesn’t mean efficiency — some councils move costs to fees, ringfenced accounts, or grants. £-per-head would be sharper than share-of-revenue; LAD population is pending ingest. Comparisons are within the same council type only.

§ 04Top suppliers.1,234 payments · £25.6m gross · 3 Dec 202531 Mar 2026

Every invoice over £500, published under the Local Government Transparency Code. Best-effort, not statutory — counts and totals net negatives (refunds/reversals).

Top by total — last 180 days

SupplierPaidSharePmts
QUALIS MANAGEMENT LTD£6.62m25.8%71
TERRA VERDE SERVICES LTD (TVS LTD)£2.94m11.5%8
QUALIS COMMERCIAL LTD£1.85m7.2%14
MORGAN SINDALL PROPERTY SERVICES LTD£1.01m3.9%5
L4 CIVILS ENGINEERING LTD£0.92m3.6%2
BARNES GROUP LIMITED (THE)£0.83m3.2%2
LONDON & CO UK LTD£0.68m2.6%11
PLACES FOR PEOPLE LEISURE MANAGEMENT LTD£0.67m2.6%7
MULALLEY & CO LTD£0.59m2.3%5
W H CONSTRUCTION LTD£0.49m1.9%22

By service area · top supplier

Service-classified supplier data not yet ingested for this council.

§ 05Westminster constituencies — the overlap.18 wards split across 3 parliamentary seats
ConstituencyWards% of councilCurrent MP
Epping Forest1478% Neil HudsonCon
Brentwood and Ongar211% Alex BurghartCon
Harlow211% Chris VinceInd
Sources, methods & last update
Method The dispatch paragraphs are AI-generated from the public sources listed below. Every figure links to its source. If we’re wrong, please tell us — corrections within 48 hours.
CompositionDemocracy Club (live)
DCLEAPIL v1.0 (historic)
Net revenueMHCLG Final LGFS
Core Spending Power table · 2025-26
Service spendDerived from MHCLG CSP shares
vs 163 other councils (district)
Band-DMHCLG CSP · precept schedules
Police, Fire, Parish on top
SuppliersCouncil publication under LGTC
1,234 payments · 3 Dec 202531 Mar 2026
Westminster overlapONS Open Geography Portal
2023 boundaries
PopulationONS mid-year estimates
Pending ingest at LAD level