Meeting Details

Meliana Spantidaki addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) to express her concern about how her bid for the future use of Holy Trinity Church had been handled.  This had been presented to Full Council at a previous meeting and had been welcomed by the Portfolio Holder.  However, the Leader of the Council had dismissed her bid undemocratically.  He had denied this at the Cabinet meeting in June.   She considered that this was unacceptable from a democratically elected leader and invited him to step down voluntarily, otherwise she would follow these matters up through the complaints process.  The Planning Committee should also reject the application for Community 360’s use of Holy Trinity Church. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded. He understood the importance of securing a space like that proposed for those in temporary accommodation. Officers had discussed her proposal with her and would come back to her in due course when the future of Holy Trinity Church was clearer.  It would not be in a condition where it could be used for some years.  It was hoped that funding would be received from the Heritage Lottery Fund to restore the building, but even if successful, it would be a long process. 

Simon Collis addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) to request that a social housing emergency be declared in Colchester. Over 2000 social housing properties had been lost in Colchester since 1994, mainly through Right to Buy.  Whilst he was pleased to note the motion on housing that had been submitted for the meeting, he was surprised that more councillors had not contacted him for his views in view of his experience and qualifications. Whilst the proposal for a moratorium on council house sales was welcomed, the Council needed to go further to cease sales completely and declare a proper social housing emergency.  It was also important to work with the Members of Parliament for Colchester on housing issues. 

Councillor Smith, Portfolio Holder for Housing, thanked Mr Collis for highlighting the human impact of the housing crisis. He was proud to have served in administrations that had started building council housing in Colchester again and he had highlighted the impact of the housing crisis in Colchester in national media. 

Glynn Evans addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) on behalf of a wider group of citizens wishing to save Middlewick and set out how the Council had been made aware of the important ecology on the site.  Whilst the Council had appointed an independent ecologist, they had been given a limited brief which presumed in favour of development. Independent survey work continued which had revealed emphatic evidence of the quantity, diversity, quality and importance of Middlewick’s wildlife, including barbastelle bats and a UK premier population of nightingales.  It was an irreplaceable environment. It was understood that a prospective buyer was making enquiries and preparing for biodiversity mitigation, which would be based on the inaccurate Stantec report. As a vendor had a duty of full disclosure they would provide their records to the vendor and thus by obligation to any buyer, in the format of a shared drive.  This would also be shared publicly in the interests of transparency and the public good. This would mitigate against the risk of a sale which was not subject to full disclosure and was therefore subject to legal challenge.  As the Council had included the site in the Local Plan, it too could be subject to legal action. They had been advised that such evidence was admissible and this was supported by legal precedent. This shared drive would shortly be published online and on social media sites. 

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability responded. It widely acknowledged that the original ecological reports submitted to the hearing were flawed and the Inspector had strengthened the policy accordingly. Middlewick could not be removed from the Local Plan without the Local Plan being subject to a review and as part of that review had appointed an independent ecologist. The Council had taken advice from Natural England on the terms of the brief. It would have been irresponsible not to include reference to the site allocation in the brief. Officers were in communication with the Ministry of Defence and potential vendors to stress the importance of policy compliance and to communicate the level of public concern.  The Council was open and willing to listen to new evidence.

Martin Pugh addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1).  He was a senior ecologist who had worked for Essex Wildlife Trust since 2005 although he was speaking in a personal capacity to highlight new findings from a survey of barbastelle bats. Barbastelle bats were a European protected species.  Their population was in steep decline and had Favourable Conservation Status with Natural England which aimed at protecting their breeding sites.  Recent surveys had confirmed that there was a likely breeding site within Birch Brook woodland which was within the site allocation. The survey was based on robust methodology and had also found activity at several locations throughout Middlewick.  Any development on Middlewick could severely impact barbastelle bats and about ten other bat species recorded on Middlewick due to increased lighting, traffic and habitat loss.    A meeting was sought at the earliest opportunity to pass on and discuss the findings in detail with the Council’s independent ecologist and planning officers

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability indicated that the Council’s independent ecologist would be willing to meet, at an appropriate time.  They were midway through their own research, and all information the Council had received from third parties had been passed on to them. Together with officers, she had met with Essex Wildlife Trust  before the election to  discuss the recent evidence found and to explain the review process. If a developer were to pursue a development on the site, as part of the planning application process they would need to undertake a full set of surveys. 

Carinna Cooper addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) to query whether the Council monitored responses to public speakers at meetings to ensure that they received responses that were direct, factual and evidence based, rather than based on obfuscation and dogma of existing belief.  For example there were concerns about the roll out of 5G technology due to the lack of safety testing.  Evidence about this issue had been sent to the Council but seemingly ignored. This was contrary to assurances given that the Council was open to evidence and adapting policies accordingly. The Council seemed willing to accept safety declarations from dissolved companies who could not be held liable in the event of harm to members of the public. She had been asked not to email on this issue again.  It was proposed that all public questions and answers were put on a publicly accessible database.  This would increase transparency and accountability  and reduce the need for the public to raise issues under Have Your Say. The public meeting on climate change would be held on 12 September  It was hoped the Council would help secure a venue and the Green Party would produce two expert speakers to speak in favour of the climate emergency.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that a response to the points raised abut the public meeting would follow after further discussion with members.  It was important that it was a structured and fair discussion.  The wider points about 5G had been investigated at length and the findings had been shared. The Council did not believe there was fraudulent activity or a failure in the Council’s duty or accept the health risks put forward. If the evidence changed the views of members would change.  The views put forward by speakers had made him and other members look at the evidence, but the overriding conclusion of the evidence, which had been rigorously tested, was that 5G was safe.   The Council had done its best to be helpful but there was nothing further to add to what had already been said.

Professor Rainer Schulze addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) to raise awareness of the Dora Love prize. Dora Love was a Holocaust survivor who had lived in Colchester for the last 30 years of her life.  The prize had been set up in 2012 to continue her educational work. It was a prize for secondary school pupils in years 6-10 and gave them an opportunity to learn about the Holocaust in ways that was relevant to them.  It inspired citizenship and activism and deterred identity based discrimination and violence. Approximately 1500 pupils had taken part since 2012. It had been generously funded and supported by the University of Essex, but it was now ceasing its funding. The prize was more relevant than ever given the rise in racism, including anti-semitism and anti-traveller views.  It needed to be supported to allow it to continue. Any support, including moral support, would be appreciated and in particular the help of Council in raising awareness of the prize and the need for support would be welcomed. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked Professor Schulze for bringing the prize to the attention of Council.  Anything that sought to educate and reduce discrimination would have the support of the Council.  It would be difficult for the Council to provide funding given the many demands it faced.  However he would ask officers to get in touch to advise on possible sources of funding and individual members may also wish to provide support. 

Solma Ahmed, Chair of Colchester Action for Palestine, addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1). Concerns were raised about anti-social behaviour, particularly around islamophobia and racism the group experienced on a march. Police protection had been inadequate and the police had not yet responded to complaints raised about the issues they faced. The group held a regular vigil at the war memorial and often faced racism and islamophobia from passers-by.  It was important this was taken into account in the Council discussion on anti-social behaviour. The Muslim community in Colchester felt increasingly vulnerable and demonised and the rise of far right groups and parties in the area was a matter of great concern.  The needs of all marginalised ethnic minority communities needed to be considered.  Councillors were invited to join the group’s vigil at the war memorial. 


Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, expressed his thanks for raising the issue so clearly and aligning her comments with those of the previous speaker. The Council cared about these issues and was united in its opposition to the behaviours described. The Council was particularly proud of Colchester’s designation as a City of Sanctuary. 

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 May 2024 were confirmed as a correct record.  

The Mayor invited Council to stand for a minute’s silence in memory of Alderman Ray Gamble. He had served on Council from 1990-2016 and was Mayor in the 2007-08 municipal year. He also served as Chair of Planning Committee and Governance and Audit Committee. The Mayor invited Councillor Paul Smith, who had served as his ward colleague, to address Council in tribute to Alderman Gamble.

The Mayor announced that Colchester was the first City in the East Of England to be awarded Compassionate City status. A compassionate city was a community that recognizes that care for one another at times of crisis and loss was not simply a task solely for health and social services but was everyone’s responsibility.  The Council was supporting this initiative by recognising those residents who had supported family or friends through the darkest of times.

The Mayor expressed Council’s thanks to Mark Healey, Community and Partnerships Officer, who had led the Council work in securing Compassionate City Status and presented him with the award.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS) that:- 

(i) In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 the number of seats, group representation and membership of the Governance and Audit Committee, Licensing Committee, Local Plan Committee, Planning Committee, and Scrutiny Panel (including the Crime and Disorder Committee) be as set out at Appendix 1 to the report by the Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer.


(ii)  In accordance with the provisions of section 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 the appointments to the Environment and Sustainability Panel shall not be on a Group basis and membership shall be as set out at Appendix 1 to the report by the Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer.

RESOLVED that the recommendation contained in draft minute 431 of the Governance and Audit Committee meeting of 18 June 2024 be approved and adopted. 

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS) that the recommendation contained in minute 191 of the Licensing Committee meeting of 20 March 2024 be approved and adopted.

Councillor Scordis requested that Council agree to the altered wording of the Motion as set out in the Supplementary Information for the meeting, pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 14(15). Council indicated its agreement to the alteration without discussion.

RESOLVED that Council Procedure Rule 11(2) be suspended to allow Council to debate and determine the motion. 

It was proposed by Councillor Scordis that:-

This Council recognises the Labour Group moved a motion on anti-social behaviour a year ago and has seen little to no progress on tackling anti-social behaviour in Colchester. 
 
Instances of crimes that are not addressed by the police include:
• Shoplifting
• Public drunkenness in the City Centre during the day
• Drug dealing
• Damage to properties
• Threats and intimidation in Castle Park
 
We note that the Conservative Police Fire and Crime Commissioner regularly states how we have more police on the street than ever before but anti-social behaviour has not declined.  These same concerns were highlighted by several members at the Crime and Disorder Panel and there has been no improvement.  
 
The public have made it clear their lack of confidence in reporting crimes to the police.

This motion does note the work of the council to make a difference including:
• Issuing fixed penalty notices for littering and anti-social behaviour
• Addressing the issue of anti-social behaviour at St Mary's car park
• Working with COLBAC on crime in the city centre
 
This motion recognises the successful work of the 'Team Ten' strategy many years ago, and calls on the Council to introduce a new strategy to deal with the challenges Colchester faces today
 
This motion also calls for the Public Space Protection Order in the City Centre to be enforced by the police.

The Council will also work with the 3 MPs for Colchester to make Colchester a safer city.

On being put to the vote the motion was carried.

A named vote having been requested by Councillor Scordis, pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 15(2), supported by Councillor T. Young and Councillor Smalls, the voting was as follows:-

FOR: Councillors Alake-Akinyemi,  Appleton, Arnold, Cory, Çufoglu , Goacher, Goss, Harris, Jay, Kelly, King, Law, Luxford Vaughan, McCarthy, Osborne, Pearson, Rippingale, Scordis, Smalls, Smith, Sommers, Warnes, Young J and Young T.  

AGAINST: Councillor Kirkby-Taylor

ABSTAINED: Councillors Bentley, Buston, Davidson, Dundas, Ellis, Hagon, Laws, Lissimore, Maclean, Naylor, Parsons, Powling, Rowe, Smithson, Spindler C, Spindler M, Sunnucks, Tate, The Mayor (Scott-Boutell).

RESOLVED that Council Procedure Rule 11(2) be suspended to allow Council to debate and determine the motion. 

It was proposed by Councillor King that:-

This Council:

Notes the acute housing crisis across the UK, with the costs of mortgages and rents at an all-time high for many, a growing number of homeless families and a shortage of council and other social housing, pushing hundreds every year into temporary accommodation, or the streets.

Calls upon the new Government to act immediately upon their housing election promises, working with local government, including to: 

a. Resurrect the Renters Reform Bill to end no fault evictions, and to give tenants four months’ notice when they are evicted, rather than two months’ notice as had been proposed. 
b. Work with the All Party Parliamentary Group Inquiry into council housing stock and finances, to reduce the burden of past housing investments so that local authorities can invest afresh, with a long term rent settlement so that this Council can meet the rising costs of regulation, repair and net zero related modernisation;
c. Help councils to meet the ever-rising demands and costs of those at risk of becoming homeless;
d. Bring housing benefit subsidies back in line with current accommodation costs, to make renting for those most in need affordable. 
e. Allow a Colchester moratorium on Right to Buy, to reduce the pressure on council housing stock, and ensure we keep sale receipts in full, for reinvestment in new social housing.

Calls upon the administration, with the support of full Council, to work with our new Members of Parliament to pursue these issues, and working with others across North Essex to make housing the priority it is for so many of our residents.

On being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

It was proposed by Councillor Dundas that:-

Council notes that:

1.    Councillors in many wards are experiencing an increased number of complaints from residents in newer developments, including HMOs, regarding performance of management companies and delays in completion of the development to a standard which would enable adoption by the local authority.

2.   This includes emptying of refuse and dog bins, grass cutting, grounds maintenance, inspection of play areas, communal area maintenance etc.

3.   In addition to the unsatisfactory performance of some management companies, some developments are experiencing delays in the developer completing aspects such as landscaping, public open space, tree planting and community facilities. In some cases, these have not been completed until several years after occupation of the dwellings and completion of all residential development and require planning enforcement, including court action, by Colchester City Council.

This Council requests that:

1.   The Council’s Planning Department continues to use all such powers at their disposal to enforce compliance with the original planning permission(s) as issued to developers and councillors continue to support them in their efforts.

2.   That the Leader of the Council and the Chair of the Planning Committee write to the Prime Minister and relevant Secretary of State requesting that:

(a)  The Government considers legislation to empower residents to have better control over such management companies and to enhance penalties when paid for services are not provided to a satisfactory level.

(b)  That any future planning laws or regulations include the failure of a developer or associated company (i) to complete an existing residential development in the local planning authority area to a satisfactory standard to enable adoption and (ii) to complete any existing development in accordance with planning permission granted including aspects such as landscaping and public open space as material planning considerations when new planning applications by the developer or associated group companies are made.

Councillor Rippingale proposed a main amendment as follows:-

That the motion on Management Companies be approved and adopted subject to the addition of the following words after sub-paragraph 3:-

4. Notes with disappointment that the previous government failed to resolve the issue of negligent management companies.

Councillor Dundas indicated that he would accept the main amendment but following the moving of the secondary amendment by Councillor Cory, Councillor Rippingale withdrew her main amendment.

Councillor Cory moved a secondary amendment as follows:-

That the motion on Management Companies be approved and adopted subject to the addition of the following words after sub-paragraph 3:-

4. To note the failure of previous governments to deal with the issue of negligent management companies and to ensure lessons are learnt on better legislation and enforcement in the future.

Councillor Dundas indicated he accepted the secondary amendment and the motion was deemed amended accordingly.  The revised wording of the motion was as follows:-

Council notes that:

1.    Councillors in many wards are experiencing an increased number of complaints from residents in newer developments, including HMOs, regarding performance of management companies and delays in completion of the development to a standard which would enable adoption by the local authority.

2.   This includes emptying of refuse and dog bins, grass cutting, grounds maintenance, inspection of play areas, communal area maintenance etc.

3.   In addition to the unsatisfactory performance of some management companies, some developments are experiencing delays in the developer completing aspects such as landscaping, public open space, tree planting and community facilities. In some cases, these have not been completed until several years after occupation of the dwellings and completion of all residential development and require planning enforcement, including court action, by Colchester City Council.

4. To note the failure of previous governments to deal with the issue of negligent management companies and to ensure lessons are learnt on better legislation and enforcement in the future.

This Council requests that:

1.   The Council’s Planning Department continues to use all such powers at their disposal to enforce compliance with the original planning permission(s) as issued to developers and councillors continue to support them in their efforts.

2.   That the Leader of the Council and the Chair of the Planning Committee write to the Prime Minister and relevant Secretary of State requesting that:

(a)  The Government considers legislation to empower residents to have better control over such management companies and to enhance penalties when paid for services are not provided to a satisfactory level.

(b)  That any future planning laws or regulations include the failure of a developer or associated company (i) to complete an existing residential development in the local planning authority area to a satisfactory standard to enable adoption and (ii) to complete any existing development in accordance with planning permission granted including aspects such as landscaping and public open space as material planning considerations when new planning applications by the developer or associated group companies are made.

On being put to the vote, the motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that the schedule of Portfolio Holder decisions covering the period 14 May 2024 – 9 July 2024 be noted.