Meeting Details

The Chair announced that he had agreed to take this item as an urgent report.  The urgency arose from the need to resolve the pay dispute following a vote for industrial action and to ensure that staff receive the pay award due for 2023/24 promptly.

The Head of People submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor J. Young attended and with the consent of the Chair, addressed Cabinet to express her thanks to both the Council representatives and Unison and was pleased to see that a settlement of the pay dispute appeared to have been reached.   This was the second year in a row that the Council had had to revert to the National Joint Council award and the Council should discuss with Unison the possibility of moving towards national negotiations rather than a local settlement.  It was hoped the pay award would be paid in the December pay run.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked the Chair of the Scrutiny Panel for agreeing for the report to come forward despite it not having been included on the Forward Plan of Key Decisions, and the Group Leaders, who had been kept informed of developments.  The Council currently negotiated pay on a local basis but consideration would be given to moving to the national bargaining process.  The proposal would allow Unison to recommend approval to its members but would involve a significant additional cost in an already challenging financial landscape.  

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, thanked Councillor King for his role in the discussions, and the Unison and Council negotiation teams. Council officers worked hard to deliver good services.  The Council was struggling financially due to external pressures and any expenditure needed to be carefully assessed.  The opportunity to reward staff was welcomed but there would be consequences as a result of the need to fund the extra expenditure.

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The National Joint Council (NJC) £1925 pay increase be applied to all spinal column points from 1 April 2023.

(b) The cost of £600k to fund the pay award be met from reserves.

REASONS

The National Joint Council (NJC) pay award for 2023-24 has recently been agreed and represents a significantly higher pay increase than the offer made to Council staff locally.

To resolve the pay dispute and to award staff a pay increase in line with NJC. 

As a good employer, the Council acknowledges the impact of the increase in the cost of living on its employees and believes the decision to increase pay will support staff to cover their living costs.  It will support staff retention and allow the continuation of the delivery of critical services. 


ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

To not apply the NJC pay award 2023-24 to the Council’s pay scales. In this eventuality UNISON members indicated that they would take industrial action in form of strike action thereby severely impacting Council core services to its residents. 

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2023 be confirmed as a correct record.

Mike Hardy attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) about Gosbecks Archaeological Park.  This had been gifted to the Borough in 1995 with a dowry of £500,000 for its maintenance and archaeological development. It was a Scheduled Ancient Monument.  Since the gifting there had been negligible archaeological development by any administration.  Former Councillor Pauline Hazell had made representations seeking to have on site interpretation boards of the history of Gosbecks  but her approaches had been ignored.  He had made approaches to the Heritage Manager with a similar proposal two years and while there had been some enthusiasm at the time the proposal had lain dormant.  The project was costed in outline at about £5k for production and installation which could be paid from the dowry.  It involved four large boards as a single display covering the pre Roman and Romano British periods. The boards were supported by existing artwork held by the late Peter Froste and held by the Colchester Archaeological Trust.  Colchester’s heritage was much greater than just the Romans.  He was willing to meet with the Portfolio Holder to discuss further.

Councillor Burrows, Portfolio Holder for Leisure, Culture and Heritage, explained she would look into the proposal and discuss with officers.  The importance of Gosbecks Park was appreciated and there was work ongoing. She would respond once she had raised the matter with officers.

Kemal Cufoglu attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1).  He expressed concern about the latest crime statistics for Colchester and asked in the light of this whether one Crime and Disorder Committee meeting per year was enough.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that he had recently met with the District Commander and took considerable reassurance from his appreciation of the challenges facing Colchester.  The discussion at the last Crime and Disorder Committee meeting had been robust. The work of the Portfolio Holder, officers and partners was key in addressing the issue.  A further meeting of the Crime and Disorder Committee was being arranged for 18 March 2024 and he would arrange for him to be sent the latest statistical information.

Councillor Sommers, Portfolio Holder for Communities, explained that it had been considered necessary to hold a further meeting of the Crime and Disorder Committee to set the strategic priorities for the Safer Colchester Partnership. The latest statistics were showing falls in some of the more serious crimes, including anti-social behaviour. The Council was undertaking considerable work with the Safer Colchester Partnership and the police, was ensuring more patrols were undertaken, and was also liaising with the Business Improvement District on issues in the City Centre.  It was important residents continued to report crime and supported Neighbourhood Watch.

Pam Donnelly, Chief Executive, was invited to contribute and highlighted the work of the Independent Advisory Group, whose role was to ensure that community tensions were responded to and to provide support at times of community stress.  Minority and faith groups were represented and the police attended meetings of the Group. 

Abi Wilkin attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to express her concern about the situation in Gaza and described the impact of the conflict, particularly on children.  There was now an entire generation of disabled children in Gaza. In the opinion of experts, what was taking place in Gaza met the necessary criteria to be defined as a genocide.  Any voice or body that called for a ceasefire was invaluable.  Councillor Goacher would be tabling a motion for the Council meeting on 7 December calling for a permanent ceasefire and it was hoped that all parties could support this. It was not a party political motion and several other Councils had adopted a similar motion. 

Councillor King, Leader for the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that he had spent time with those demonstrating outside the Town Hall .  He expressed his horror at events in Gaza and the compassion and empathy felt across the Council for all those involved and affected.  Council normally sought to reach a consensus on motions on national and international issues.  The Council could affect what happened locally and needed to be even handed in its approach.  It was noted that Colchester was a City of Sanctuary and had a history of tolerance.  Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, expressed his thanks to the speaker and to the demonstrators .  He personally supported the calls for a ceasefire and highlighted that it was Liberal Democrat policy to support a ceasefire and a two state solution.  Concern was also expressed about the impact of the conflict within the United Kingdom and the increased division that resulted.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that a motion had been submitted by Councillor Goacher for Council on 7 December 2023 which was going through the normal validation process. 

The Managing Director (Interim) of Colchester Commercial (Holdings) Ltd (CCHL) submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with draft minute 384 of the Governance and Audit Committee meeting of 17 October 2023.

Councillor Dundas attended and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the Cabinet to express his support for the proposed future strategy, although it was noted that the CIPFA report on which it was based had been received in January 2023.  There were a number of dedicated and talent people within the CCHL and its subsidiaries and they had had some successes.  However, this was a timely reminder that involvement in commercial ventures was inherently risky.  The Council should not have included projected profits from commercial operations within its medium term financial forecast.  Profit could only be relied upon once it had been created.  This needed to be borne in mind as the Council considered its involvement in future large scale housing developments, which were very high risk.  The Council needed to learn the lessons from this. 

Councillor Willetts attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Cabinet. It was appreciated that there were significant opportunities that the creation of the commercial companies could exploit  However, there were a number of strategic issues which had impacted upon the companies.  These included the Covid 19 pandemic. The key issue was that whilst there were a number of high quality people with CCHL, at  present its role and its relationship with the Council was ill defined.  There were two levels of obfuscation that prevented  backbench Councillors from being able to see how the companies were operating and to hold them to account. They operated with a degree of secrecy as they dealt with commercial matters and information about their operations did not pass through the Council quickly enough. There should be an assessment of how the companies had cost the Council and what value they had brought.  The rationale of the management fee and dividend was not understood and did not make sense. The portfolio of the Amphora companies was difficult to understand and too diverse and was a key factor in their failure. There were also difficulties with the management of individual events. The proposal to take most of the service back under direct Council control was supported.  This would make e services easier to scrutinise and hold to account.  It was disappointing that the concerns that had been expressed at the foundation of the companies had been shown to be valid.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked Councillors Dundas and Willetts for their comments and the insight they provided.  It was important to recognise that there were also some successes which would continue. It was accepted that there needed to be a robust forward focus on risk and return and a sober judgement on what should be included in future budgets.  Covid had disrupted the plans of the companies. The administration would take away considerable learning from the experience.  The commitment to transparency remained.  The proposal would leave the Council in a strong position to take the necessary next steps.  Thanks were expressed to the staff of CCHL and its subsidiary companies and to those members who had sat on the Board. 

RESOLVED that the Proposed Future Strategy for Amphora set out in Appendix A of the Managing Director (Interim)’s report, as supported by the Board of Colchester Commercial (Holdings) Ltd on 26 September 2023 and recommended by the Governance and Audit Committee of 17 October 2023, be approved. 

REASONS

The proposed strategy seeks to respond to the change in the external environment which has impacted on both the City Council and its wholly owned trading companies. In particular, the change in the City Council’s ability to accommodate risk.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The principal alternative to the strategy proposed would be a continuation of the current arrangements. However, this would require the City Council to underwrite costs for an indefinite period, with little certainty about when those costs might be recovered. This would place added strain on the City Council’s already challenging financial position. 

The Managing Director (interim) of Colchester Commercial (Holdings) Ltd (CCHL) submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with draft minute 385 of the Governance and Audit Committee meeting of 17 October 2023.

Councillor Dundas attended and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the Cabinet to seek clarity on some of the figures on which the decision was based.  

• The project had started with a budget of £5.7 million which had increased to £8.552 million in 2021.  The expansion in 2021 was regretted, although it had considerable support at the time, including from the section 151 officer. What was the status of the BIS grant of £3.45 million? Had it all been drawn down and spent, and if was still a potential liability, what was the value of the liability and where was it in the Council accounts?  If it needed to be paid back, how would this be done?
• Could it be confirmed that the Council had entered a loan facility with CAEL of £2.25 million, of which £1.35 million had been drawn down.  How much Council funding in cash terms was spent by CAEL?
• The published accounts showed assets of approximately £1.2 million and were described as under construction.  This was clearly no longer the case so what was their value now? How was this being accounted for and where was it shown in the Council accounts?
• CAEL were entering into contracts for equipment in 2021.  A figure for these contracts was given as £195,000 in the report.  Was the Council confident that was the full extent of the liability relating to contracts?  Was any equipment supplied because of the contracts entered into?
• Could a round figure be given on how much money had been spent on the entire project and the value placed on remaining assets?
Richard Carr, Managing Director (Interim) of CCHL was invited to respond and explained some of the detailed queries would need to be addressed by the section 151 officer.  However, the proposal to hibernate CAEL was not the same as dissolution.  This was a genuine proposition as there may be a time in the future when the Council wants to proceed with a scheme of this nature through this form of arrangement. It gave an option to resurrect the company in the future if that was in the Council’s interests. It also minimised the risks in terms of any grant being reclaimed and met the objectives of protecting the Council’s best interests and ensuring there was no lingering liability on the company directors. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that he would provide a written response to the detailed queries if they were not dealt with later in the meeting.  He stressed that the decision was based on the reality of the situation and reflected a more limited ambition, but that there was a potential future for the company depending on the future market for energy and the development of the area. 

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The recommendation contained in draft minute 385 of the Governance and Audit Committee of 17 October 2023 that Colchester Amphora Energy Limited should be placed in hibernation be accepted. 

(b) Cabinet approves (as shareholder) the recommendations contained in the minutes of Colchester Commercial (Holdings) Limited’s Board meeting of 26 September 2023 contained at Appendix 4 of the Managing Director (Interim)’s report.

(c) Colchester Amphora Energy Limited is prepared for, placed into and maintained in a dormant state as detailed in section 2 of Appendix A of the Managing Director (Interim)’s report.
 
(d)     Colchester Amphora Energy Limited’s contracts and agreements are transferred or otherwise dealt with in accordance with recommendations detailed in the table at section 8 of Appendix 1 of the Managing Director (Interim)’s report.
   
(e) The employment of Colchester Amphora Energy Limited’s staff is transferred in accordance with arrangements set out under section 8 of Appendix A of the Managing Director (Interim)’s report

REASONS

Given delays with the development of the Northern Gateway, the company is unable to complete the delivery of the low carbon heat network on a commercial basis, in the foreseeable future. This position may change in the future but for the moment, transferring the assets created to the City Council and hibernating CAEL, would keep open options for the completion of the scheme in the future, whilst curtailing the costs currently being incurred.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Alternatively, the City Council would need to agree to continue to underwrite the costs of CAEL, in the knowledge that there is no realistic prospect of an offsetting income in the foreseeable future. 

The Strategic Director submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor Sunnucks attended and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the Cabinet to express his support for the concept of a corporate landlord model which had the potential to get more value from the Council’s assets and bring expertise into one place.  However, he was disappointed by the proposals in the report which relied on a RAG approach, which was too subjective. This would lead to the Council running out of money and not using its portfolio of assets effectively.  It could be approached differently by using the values of the properties set out in the accounts, which must be supported by valuation information.  This valuation information could be a starting point as it would include assumptions about income and rent and would reveal much of the information required through the RAG analysis  This would provide an understanding of the market value and of alternative uses.  The portfolio of assets was substantial enough for professionals with proper expertise to look at.  The information should also be placed in the public domain, as it should be information that was available to auditors. The Council should be looking to achieve 5% cost of debt on its assets. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked Councillor Sunnucks for his comments. The Council had a public sector duty which constrained how the Council could approach this.  The administration had a strong focus on risk and return and the report proposed a long overdue change of direction in how the Council managed its assets ad would provide much better information on which to make decisions.  It was vital that that asset management process took account of social value and there would be occasions when social value considerations would influence decision on the expected returns from assets. It was accepted that the process should be as open as possible. 

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, welcomed Councillor Sunnucks support for the principles underpinning the model and stressed that the process would be developed and refined in the course of experience.

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The transfer of all functions and associated staff relating to General fund (non-Housing Revenue Account) property and facilities management from Colchester Borough Homes into the Council to support the development of a centralised corporate landlord team by 1 April 2024 be approved, with shadow management arrangements to be provided by the Council preceding that date to allow for a managed transition.

(b) The future changes to the management agreement, service level agreements and the associated fees paid to Colchester Borough Homes to reflect these revised arrangements be approved.

(c) Authority be delegated to the Chief Operating Officer in consultation with the Leader of the Council to undertake all subsequent operational decisions related to the transfer that arise following this decision. 

(d) The Council’s Constitution be amended to reflect these changes in the responsibility for functions. 

REASONS

Bringing functions, teams and budgets together in the Council is the first step of a transformation to a corporate landlord team as recommended by CIPFA. It is part of the development of a strategy, policy and delivery framework that responds to a number of external factors since the development of the Council’s last Asset Management Strategy in 2016 (refreshed in 2019 prior to Covid-19) and will facilitate a more co-ordinated, efficient and effective approach to maintaining and utilising Council land and buildings. 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The principal alternative option would be continuing with the current arrangements. However, a decentralised approach would not facilitate the co-ordinated up approach recommended by CIPFA. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained the report on the Officer Pay Policy Statement 2024-25 had been withdrawn and would be resubmitted to the meeting in January 2024 after taking account of the negotiations on the pay settlement and consideration of potential benefits of involvement in the national pay process. 

The Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, introduced the report.  Whilst the information in the report provided context around the Council’s overall performance on housing, Cabinet did not underestimate the impact of the findings of the Ombudsman and how these events had impacted on the individuals concerned.  The report set out the findings of the Ombudsman and the response to the findings by Colchester Borough Homes.  These included training for staff, reviews of policy and audits of casework.   These were the steps that a good organisation would take to minimise the risk of repetition.

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, highlighted the issues around anti-social behaviour raised by one of the cases and sought clarification as to the conclusion of the review of anti-social behaviour undertaken by Colchester Borough Homes.

Philip Sullivan, Chief Executive, Colchester Borough Homes, responded and stressed how disappointed Colchester Borough Homes were to receive the findings of the Ombudsman in these cases.   The actions identified by the Ombudsman had been completed at pace and lessons had been learnt.   

Councillor King emphasised that Cabinet recognised the work undertaken by the Colchester Borough Homes in response to the findings and his personal attention to the issues.  Cabinet also recognised the pressures  and the scale of challenge Colchester Borough Homes faced with the current housing crisis. 

RESOLVED that the contents of the report by the Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer and the actions taken be noted.

REASONS

To inform the Cabinet of the contents of the reports by the Housing Ombudsman.  

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

No alternative options were proposed.

The Chief Executive of Colchester Borough Homes Ltd submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member. 

Councillor J. Young attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Cabinet.  The current housing crisis was the worst the Council had experienced.   The proposals in the report were welcomed and provided a chink of light and a way forward showing how the situation could be improved.  This would be welcomed by those working in housing and those on the waiting list.  The importance of housing could not be underestimated in determining life chances.

Councillor Sunnucks attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Cabinet to support the principles set out in the report of using affordable rents in appraisals and of charging to the affordable rent limit . However, the appraisal assumptions would be disastrous and he would address that in the Part B item.  If the Council invested based on those assumptions it would run out of money. The Council needed a credible 30 year business plan for its Housing Revenue Account.  The appraisals needed to be in the public domain.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, welcomed the support for the principle of the proposal.   He would look to see if there was more that could be done to improve transparency but there was a balance to be struck between that and the need to progress work swiftly.  The HRA had not had the visibility and attention that it warranted, but the Governance and Audit Committee would be looking at it at its meeting in December.  

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, highlighted that Councillor Smith, who was absent, as Portfolio Holder was passionate about delivering more Council homes to those who needed them and looked for innovative solutions.  The change in the local housing allowance in the Autumn Statement was welcomed.  A 30 Year HRA Business Case was in place and was in the public domain and was reviewed when national housing policies or funding changed. This policy allows the Council to strike a balance between obtaining rent from tenants and implementing strategies that would enable the Council to build more houses. The policy was wholeheartedly supported   It needed to be seen in the context of a national housing crisis which government needed to address, partly through a  moratorium on right to buy.

Philip Sullivan, Chief Executive, Colchester Borough Homes, was invited to address Cabinet.  He stressed that the report proposed more robust and challenging assumptions which better reflected the market which would support better ongoing financial management.  The charging of affordable rents would mean that more schemes would become viable and become part of the solution to the housing crisis. 

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Neighbourhood Services and Waste sought confirmation as to whether management fees were included in affordable rents, and why increases in gardening fees as a result of request from tenants for improved services from Idverde were not built into the management fee for two years. Philp Sullivan confirmed that the management fee was built into the affordable rent.  He would investigate the issue of timescales for increases to the management fee. 

RESOLVED that:-

(a) Updated development assumptions used to calculate viability be agreed, and authority be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Housing to review and agree the assumptions annually going forward.  

(b) Affordable rent be charged, up to the level of local housing allowance rate, for all new build developments, including the acquisition of new builds, that complete from 1st December 2023. 

REASONS

The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) is facing a range of pressures arising, for example, from legislative and regulatory changes requiring more money to be spent to keep homes safe or compliant with the Decent Homes Standard, higher costs to build and acquire properties, higher repair and improvement work costs due to increased inflation and the requirement to achieve carbon neutral by 2050.  The Council is required to prove that the Housing Revenue Account has a suitable long term business plan, over the 30-year period. With more households in temporary accommodation than has been seen in recent years, the General Fund is also under pressure. The Council will need to review spending to ensure the Council’s financial stability, whilst meeting regulatory requirements.  Some non-statutory services, such as financial inclusion work and building new homes could be affected if they are not affordable within the Housing Revenue Account business plan.  

However, the Council has a strategic priority to increase the number, quality and types of affordable homes. This strategic priority will be met via a mix of Section 106 housing, acquisitions (through both the acquisitions programme and through agreements with local developers), and through the Council’s new build programme. 

The assumptions used to calculate viability need to be regularly reviewed to ensure that they remain up to date in reflecting the market and can be used to establish whether potential developments strengthen the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).  By updating these assumptions to reflect the current benchmarking data available, it is likely to indicate that future developments will be unviable whilst charging social rent. These assumptions are commercially sensitive as at times we will be competing with other parties to acquire units.  

By charging affordable rent, the Council will be able to progress with viable development opportunities, increasing the Council’s housing stock, alleviating pressure on the housing register, Housing Revenue Account, temporary accommodation and in turn the General Fund. This will assist the Council to continue delivering high quality, energy efficient homes to meet the housing need in Colchester and maintain its current stock to a high standard benefitting applicants on the housing register and current tenants. The Council can bid for Homes England funding on viable developments, strengthening its position as an investment partner with Homes England.  

Setting the affordable rent, at Local Housing Allowance rates will help protect tenants from financial difficulties, if they claim benefits towards their housing costs.   

The Regulator of Social Housing’s Rent Standard allows for existing homes to be converted from social rent to affordable rent if this is pursuant to a housing supply delivery agreement with Homes England.  However, the Regulator of Social Housing’s current policy is not to permit this and hence the decision on whether to charge affordable rent is purely in respect of new homes being built or acquired.  

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Not to change the assumptions used to calculate viability or charge affordable rent on new build developments and continue to let all new developments and acquisitions of council housing stock at social rent levels. This will either make schemes less viable and will increase pressure on the Housing Revenue Account or lead to unviable schemes not proceeding, which in turn will fail to alleviate pressure on the housing register, temporary accommodation and the General Fund.

Update the assumptions used to appraise development schemes but continue to charge social rent for all developments.  It is unlikely that any developments will prove viable under these circumstances. Homes England will not support a development that is unviable. The Council will be unable to increase the housing stock, failing to alleviate pressure on the housing register, temporary accommodation and the General Fund.  

Update the assumptions and agree to the Council being able to charge the maximum affordable rent (up to 80% of the private rent market), without taking into consideration the Local Housing Allowance. This will improve viability of new schemes and reduce the pressure on the Housing Revenue Account, the Housing Register, temporary accommodation and the General Fund.  However, this could lead to vulnerable tenants facing financial difficulty, where the Local Housing Allowance will not cover the full rent, and place pressure on the Housing Management service to manage the rent arrears. 

To place the new build housing programme on hold, whilst the Council focuses on delivering on the statutory regulations for the Council’s current housing stock.  This may reduce pressure on the Housing Revenue Account in the short term, however the HRA will not benefit from the rental income generated by new homes which, longer term, has the potential to strengthen the HRA. This option will increase the pressure on the General Fund and the Council will be less able to meet local housing need. More residents may require temporary accommodation, and this will have a negative social impact on Colchester residents. 

Consideration was given to the nomination for the appointment of the Deputy Mayor of the City of Colchester for the 2024-25 municipal year.

The Monitoring Officer advised Cabinet that the convention was that the nomination for Deputy Mayor was made by each of the main political groups in turn.  As the Mayor was a Conservative appointment and the Deputy Mayor was a Liberal Democrat appointment, it was for the Labour Group to nominate the Deputy Mayor for the 2024-25 municipal year. The Labour Group had nominated Councillor Mike Lilley, who had fourteen years’ service.  The nomination was supported by all political groups. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Neighbourhood Services and Waste, expressed their support for Councillor Lilley’s nomination.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that Councillor Lilley be appointedas the Deputy Mayor of the City of Colchester for the 2024-25 municipal year.

The Cabinet resolved under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements)(Meetings and Access to Information)(England) Regulations 2012 to exclude the public from the meeting for the following item as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

This minute is not for publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government  Act 1972 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of a particular person, including the authority holding the information).

The Cabinet resolved under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements)(Meetings and Access to Information)(England) Regulations 2012 to exclude the public from the meeting for the following item as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

Cabinet noted the not for publication appendices to the reports by the Managing Director (Interim), Colchester Commercial Holding Ltd.