Melina Spantidaki attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) about the bid she had submitted for a potential use of Holy Trinity Church. She had approached a number of community groups and individuals, including those who were homeless, who expressed their support for her proposal. Part of the proposal included the provision of kitchen facilities and washing machines for those who had need of such facilities, which extended beyond rough sleepers. Community 360 only provided emergency support for the homeless. Her proposal would provide more ongoing support and access to facilities which would enable the homeless to help themselves.
Councillor Sommers, Portfolio Holder for Communities, responded expressed thanks for her proposal. Holy Trinity Church would not reopen for a significant period of time. Officers were aware of her proposal and would be in touch when bids for use of the building could be considered.
Richard Martin attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to express his concern that the brief provided to the Independent Ecologist instructed to report on the Middlewick site would not enable an independent report to be produced. To produce a truly neutral report would place them at risk of breach of contract and to fulfil the brief would have to accept the premise of development on the site. A full independent survey would not impose the constraint as set out in the brief. This was a breach of the undertaking previously given in respect of an independent survey and in these circumstances it was difficult to trust the process as they were advised to do.
Alan Short attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to express similar concerns. He had acted as ,an independent consultant and expert witness. If he had received this brief he would interpret it as needing to express an opinion on where houses could be built. The inclusion of Middlewick within the plan had been a mistake, albeit with the motive of preventing a larger development, based on a poor understanding of the biodiversity and of the potential mitigation. The brief should be revised and toned down and be signed off at Councillor level. Councillors were the decision makers and could instruct officers to remove the site from the Local Plan.
Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability, responded and explained that she had been advised that those who had fed into the brief were those who had been critical of the original Stantec report and that they were happy with it. The brief had to reflect the parameters set by policy on Middlewick and what it was seeking to achieve was the best mitigation within the terms of the policy. The site could not be removed from the Local Plan at this stage as there was a process to be followed for any review of the Plan. There was still a significant amount of work to do in assessing evidence and outcome from the call for sites. Any revised plan would also need to be subject to independent inspection and found to be sound.
Sir Bob Russell attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) about the collapse of Middle Mill Weir. Prompt action had been taken by Council officers at the time to ensure public safety but in the intervening period nothing had been done. There appeared to be a stand-off between Essex County Council and Colchester City Council. There was a long diversion and the condition of the and equilibrium of the river was deteriorating and the southern bank was drying leading to fears of a collapse of the footpath. Inspections by experts seemed to be taking too long. The suggestion that the army provide a bailey bridge had been dismissed. Sandbags should be provided to raise the river level, as befitted the conservation area.
Frances Wagstaff of CO1 Residents Association attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) about the impact of the collapse of Middle Mill Weir. A temporary bridge needed to be provided now. Local residents remined concerned about the lack of access from Kings Meadow to Lower Castle Park. The barriers either side of the collapsed bridge were welcomed. However problems with signage remained, which was unclear and not being properly monitored. There were also concerns about safety due to uneven state of the path and the lack of lighting. Elderly and disabled residents of Riverside Cottages were effectively housebound due to the boundary fence from the Riverside office development, and there was also concern about the impact of increased footfall and anti-social behaviour arising from the diversions.
Councillor Goacher attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet to state that there was a perception that nothing was happening and that the situation was not being addressed urgently. The Council needed to issue some communication on what was being done. There was real concern from residents of the Riverside Estate about future flooding. The comments about the residents of Riverside Cottages were endorsed and there was concern about the impact of potential events in Lower Castle Park. Further information was needed on potential timescales for action.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and said he would ask for an update on the issues raised next week. He would also meet with those concerned on site to talk through the issues, together with specialists. The need for more and better communications and better signage was understood.
Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Neighbourhoods and Waste, explained in detail the many actions that were underway to address the issue. A Working Group had been established involving teams across the Council alongside partners. Consultation was ongoing with a range of interested groups, including residents’ associations and specialist groups. Specialist survey work was underway to assess the Weir and potential alternative routes. The Ministry of Defence had been consulted about the bailey bridge proposal but it was not believed that this would meet the MACA requirements. A joint Communications Plan with Essex County Council was being developed. The aim was to introduce a shorter diversionary route over the Cricket Club bridge but this was dependent on the survey and negotiations with land owners but this would be several weeks away as lower river flow was needed to complete the survey. This was a complex issue with many stakeholders involved and issues of land ownership. It would inevitably take time to gather and assess all the information to ensure that the right decision was taken.
Tony Cheeld attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to stress the importance for small cities of building and maintaining a brand. The Colchester City brand had been broken with the help of Dane Park, Church Manor Estates. The brand could be restored but it required consideration of every interdependent facet of Colchester, including effective engagement with residents and businesses and no further drift from the principles of democracy. The proposals for Crouch Street West broke all the Nolan principles. Colchester needed to be welcoming to visitors and the installation of cycle lanes could hinder the provision of parking and public transport.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, expressed his thanks for his passion for he city but said that that the installation of joined up cycle lanes was part of ensuring that future generations had access to safe cycle and walking routes, so important for health and wellbeing, and played a role in reducing congestion. The Council was committed to public engagement as was evidenced by a 200 strong Resident Panel and its commitment to consultation. City Status in the round had improved Colchester’s visibility and reputation.
Alderman Gerard Oxford attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to express his concern that section 106 contributions were not used to mitigate the impact of development in the ward where the development occurred. For example, funding for Highwoods had been diverted to expenditure on highways and also towards Northern Gateway. This would also happen with the development of the Mill Road site. Ward councillors were not engaged in discussions about allocation of section 106 funding so could not influence how this was distributed.
Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio for Planning , Environment and Sustainability, explained that some section 106 funding went towards a central fund used for highways and other infrastructure. However her experience was that the ward element always went towards the ward and was signed off by the ward councillors and was used for community focused projects. She would investigate individual cases if provided with details.
.
Carinna Cooper attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to highlight advice from the Planning Inspectorate that it was the responsibility of local planning authorities to ensure any certificates submitted as evidence as part of an application for 5G mast were valid, contrary to previous advice from the Council. The public would no longer naively accept false statements from councils. Many councils were being confronted with questions about the safety and legality of mast installations. The Council was in breach of the National Planning Policy Framework section 121c in respect of such applications by not ensuring certificates were valid. A brief search had revealed at least 6 applications which appeared to be fraudulent. The Council should cease any further approval of such masts until the matter had been thoroughly investigated.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, indicated that he would arrange for a written response to be provided.
Bevan Waghorn attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) about the Leader of the Council’s involvement with Community 360 over the period it had provided a loan to its Chief Executive. Would the Leader of the Council be transparent and provide clarity on what he knew about the loan?
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that this was already in the public domain. He had been an unpaid volunteer Trustee for a period. He would reflect as to whether he gave enough time and attention but had accepted he shared a responsibility with other Trustees for decisions over that period. Three issues had been raised over which there were concerns and he had responded on two as he could recall the conversations at that time. He was not clear on the third so had sought further information from Community 360, which had not been forthcoming. He had done his best to assist Community 360 at the time, as an organisation which had done a lot of good work across the city. He would not make any further comment on the ongoing conversations between Community 360 and the Council and its partners and he was not involved in the detail of those discussions. However, he wanted to see a good future for them and for their partners in view of the excellent work they did.
Councillor J. Young attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet to suggest that it was time to review the Council’s governance arrangements to ensure as many members as possible had the opportunity to be involved wit the oversight of the Fit for the Future programme. The proposed KPI on relets was set at 73 days.
It was appreciated that this was an outside target and that performance was generally about 42 days, but this needed to be reviewed in view of the pressure on temporary housing.
Councillor Smith, Portfolio for Housing, explained that in terms of the relet target the government now required this to take account of the relet of special needs and temporary accommodation, rather than just general needs as previously. This could be considerably more time consuming. Colchester Borough Homes would continue to monitor against the old target so progress could continue to be measured, The current performance was 32 days and the aim was to reduce it further to 28 days. Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder Strategy, agreed that a thorough governance review should be undertaken.
Councillor Naylor attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Cabinet about the Mill Road site. In return for giving up green space and the rugby club site, residents were promised affordable housing for families in need by 2022. It was now an eyesore, and there was delay while debt grew. Not a single new home had been built on the site. The administration continued to believe it could develop the site itself, but there was no evidence to support this. The decision to keep the site was costing £250,000 per month in interest payments. This could build one home per month for a family in need. Cabinet had rejected the only workable plan for the site at Full Council. This was frustrating and distressing for those in need. Now the administration had had time to consider the plan would it now accept this the only workable plan on the table for the site.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Hoder for Strategy, indicated he did not consider the Conservative proposal was a sound or deliverable plan. Consideration need to be given to the impact of the pandemic and the impact this had on supply chains and the time taken to get agreement on the junction. The administration remained committed to its plan to develop the site in the most cost effective way with its partners to meet a variety of needs including housing.
Councillor Smith, Portfolio Holder for Housing, highlight the impact of national economic factors, including the mini budget, which had led to an increase in interest rates which had severely curtailed house building. The Conservative proposal had been rejected by Full Council, rather than the Cabinet.
Councillor Warnes attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet about the proposed KPI target of 73 days for relets. There had a been a historic problem within the authority in delivering empty problems. Every effort needed to be made to address this. Other remedies needed to be actively used such as tenancy management inspections to ensure properties were maintained and returned to the Council in a suitable state,
Councillor Smith, Portfolio for Housing, agreed with the comments and that tenancy management inspections were undertaken. It was emphasised that Colchester Borough Homes were in the upper quartile of performance on relets. The importance of the role of ward councillors in bringing attention to potential empty homes was stressed.
Gordon Kerr attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to highlight a few issues around local and national government finances and the banking system.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked him for his comments.