Meeting Details

Apologies were received from Councillors Cox, Law, Maclean, Mannion, Moffat, Osborne and Smalls.

Nick Chilvers addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1).  Whilst he was supportive of the proposed new Waste Strategy, it would be difficult to implement in Victorian urban streets.  The debate at the Scrutiny Panel had not dealt with the practical issues raised by Castle ward councillors.   The views of the crews should be taken into consideration.  The smooth roll out of changes in 2016 had been mentioned at the Scrutiny Panel, but this had avoided any difficult areas.  The projected savings on staff costs were optimistic and there would be large number of requests for special assistance.   The choice of blue for the colour of the bins showed little regard for heritage and a more discrete colour should be used. The use of blue bins could undermine other good work to improve the look of the city.

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure, indicated he was content to look again at the colour of  the bins.  The colour of the bins made no difference to the cost.  In respect of the issues raised about the use of wheeled bins in areas of terraced housing, wheeled bins were used widely across the country in such areas.  Other options would be available where wheeled bins were impractical. There would also be a phased approach to the rollout and lessons would be learnt from the pilot.  The use of wheeled bins brought improvements to the health and safety of staff.  

Sir Bob Russell addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) to ask the Leader of the Council to confirm whether after the £12 million investment at St Botolph’s roundabout, congestion was likely to be worse than it was currently?


Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that it was his understanding that the development would not make any material difference to journey times. However it would make a significant improvement to an entrance to the city centre. Essex County Council were the lead authority on the project but he would ensure that information about the project and the works involved were shared with the public. 

Carinna Cooper addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) to stress the importance of being open to new information, which may conflict with strongly held beliefs. There was evidence that the Council was lacking in capacity to be objective in its decision making.  In order for councillors to fulfil their obligation to look at all evidence impartially it was important to understand core values and beliefs and to understand that these were often based on assumptions and perceptions. There also needed to be better appreciation of the public’s better informed views. Society was operating less as a democracy and more as an authoritarian dictatorship. What safeguards could be put in place to ensure unbiased decision making by the Council? Would the Leader of the Council put the record straight in respect of his comments about 5G at the last meeting. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, indicated that the Monitoring Officer would respond in due course in respect of her complaint  about his previous comments. He disagreed with the assertion that the Council was run as an authoritarian dictatorship. It was accessible and accountable.  Officers were open minded and were willing to change their views as the facts underpinning them changed. 

Gordon Kerr addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) to query the basis on which liability orders for council tax were issued. They violated Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Courts often passed responsibility for liability orders back to councils. The profits from this were then passed back to other stakeholders. Under the terms of the Local Government Act 1888 all duties and liabilities of the inhabitants of a county were the responsibility of the council of that county, so the liability for council tax was with the council rather than the individual.

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, responded to explain that there was no written constitution and that democracy had evolved over time due to precedent, statute law and common law.   The point of paying council tax and the issuing of liability orders was to ensure that everyone worked together as a collective as it had been decided that this was the best way to deliver services for residents. The Council was made up of residents who were also liable for council tax and was not a faceless bureaucracy.  Councillor Smithson subsequently highlighted that the Council’s authority to levy council tax was set out in primary legislation, namely the Finance Act 1992, which gave it authority to levy a charge on dwellings. 

Richard Martin addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1).  He had recently met with a Natural England grassland specialist at Middlewick.  He had provided the specialist with a history of the site and its inclusion in the Local Plan. He had been able to see the extent of the acid grassland on the site, and that it was not restricted to the fenced off firing range area.  He had asked why Middlewick had not been made a habitat of principal importance under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.  Could the Council explain this?  They had given Natural England access to their shared Google drive containing their survey data.  The biodiversity of the site meant it was one of the richest wildlife sites in the area. Natural England were now much better informed about the site and its history, including the Peter Brett Associate’s ecology report.  Now that there was more ecological evidence available to the Council and given that it had its own ecological report in progress, would the Council fully evaluate all the evidence and allow its ecologists to present their report before councillors were asked to vote on the inclusion of Middlewick in any future Local Plan.

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability, confirmed that all evidence would be made available to Full Council before any future vote on the Local Plan. That evidence was currently being gathered.  The Council had recently appointed an independent ecologist to start assessing the ecological evidence from scratch, and it was widely accepted that the Stantec report was not fit for purpose.  Ancient woodland was always covered by policy.  The designation of habitats of principal importance was not done by local authorities,  but the Council would take regard of any such designation when producing its Local Plan.  It was understood that the site was designated as a habitat of principal importance. Further detail about the issues arising from that legislation would be provided in a written response. 

Caroline White addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1).  The press release issued by the Council on the day before the meeting showed that all rational arguments that Middlewick should be protected based on principal habitats and protected species had been made and ignored. The Council continued to deflect from what had happened. Middlewick had been included in the Local Plan and submitted to government in 2017 before any ecological evidence had been received.  The 53 hectares of acid grassland mentioned the in the PBA report and the Local Plan sustainability appraisal reports were a more accurate reflection of the acid grassland.  The survey on which the Stantec report was based had been limited by weather and timing which impacted on the allocation and mitigation boundaries. Although the Local Plan should be evidence based, no evidence had been presented that 10% biodiversity net gain (BNG) was deliverable and therefore there was no evidence that the development was deliverable.  Therefore the Local Plan was not sound. The 53 hectare figure was in all documents except the Stantec report. The 9-16% BNG in the Local Plan was based on inaccurate data or assumptions. Stantec had ignored the DEFRA framework for the calculation of BNG.  The Council’s brief to its ecologist was too narrow and only covered botany and invertebrates. Whilst the Council had promised to share information from local naturalists with its ecologist, no meeting had yet been arranged. 

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability, responded to explain that if an application was brought forward that did not demonstrate that 10% BNG was achievable, it would not get planning permission.  It was for the Inspector to rule on whether a Local Plan was sound, on the basis of representations from the Council and other parties. It had been accepted in the hearings that the Stantec report was not fit for purpose and the Inspector had strengthened the policy significantly.  The Council did not have inhouse ecologist specialists and had commissioned its own independent report. The Council had met with representatives of Natural England and they had been given access to the ecologist.  It was willing to widen the brief to the ecologist to include other species.  The Council was not ignoring any evidence that it had been offered and had given its ecologist access to information collated by Friends of Middlewick. 

Karena Midwood addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) about the proposal from the government to remove the single person council tax discount. As a carer she understood the impact that this would have on the vulnerable and those who were dependent on others. Structures put in place to help the vulnerable maintain their place in society were gradually being removed,, such as winter fuel payments.  This would cause added distress and hardship. The Council should help those who looked to it for protection and should use its voice and influence to protect the vulnerable by not removing the single person council tax discount, even if government gave it the power to do so.

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, responded.  There had been an indication from government that it would not remove single person council tax discount. The forthcoming budget statement would provide clarity. If the government made a decision to change this, it was likely that they would give the Council the choice to maintain it. The Council had a generous local council tax support scheme and was committed to helping the vulnerable in society so it would continue with single person council tax discount. In terms of the winter fuel allowance, the Council was already speaking to those who were at risk of losing it to check they were claiming the pension credit and were getting the support they needed. 

A local resident addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1).  As it was Black History Month and Hate Crime Awareness Week he expressed his thanks and gratitude to all diverse communities and marginalised groups.  Together they were united against all forms of hate and discrimination. In the light of the surge of violent far right movements and the riots in the summer and with further disorder anticipated in the following weeks, what strategies and policies  had the Council introduced to support and protect local ethnic minority groups, business refugee and migrant organisations.  In particular, during and after the riots,

• Were any surveys conducted with targeted minority groups?
• Had an emergency meeting of the Crime and Disorder Committee or Council been called to address the concerns of minority groups?
• Following the riots, when many businesses run by members of minority groups were closed for safety reasons, were any assessments made and was there any contingency available for those business or charities that worked with them to provide subsidies for damage to buildings and for financial loss.  

What were the future short and long term strategies of the Council to tackle the rise of far right movements and discrimination in all its forms, whilst also protecting and connecting more with local ethnic minority groups and refugee organisations and businesses.  The Council webpages containing details of Annual Equality and Diversity reports and Safeguarding reports needed to be updated.

Councillor Sommers, Portfolio Holder for Communities, Heritage and Public Protection, responded and stressed that whilst there had been a lot of misinformation on social media there had been no actual incidents in the whole of Essex during the period of the riots.  Incidences of hate crime were down across the country, including Colchester.  The Council already had policies in place to support its communities but additional support had been given.  This  had included direct briefings to local community leaders and spokespersons, who could then disseminate the message within their communities. There had also been briefings to  senior councillors and partners to ensure action was coordinated. Surveys with minority groups had not been carried out due to the fast moving nature of events but there had been constant communication with such groups.  An emergency meeting of the Crime and Disorder Committee had not been called as there was already a comprehensive police plan for any form of escalation.  It was hoped that these actions had helped prevent any disorder in Essex over this period. Partners such as the police and the Business Improvement District had provided reassurance to local businesses. Damage to properties was not a council matter but businesses should be appropriately insured.  There was no specific information  about a threat of disorder on the date suggested.  Colchester was the lead authority on hate crime in the Community Safety Partnership and officers met with the police regularly on this issue. Hate Crime awareness and Hate Crime Ambassador training was being rolled out across the Council, including councillors. The information on the website would be reviewed.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 July 2024 and the meetings held on 11 September 2024 were confirmed as a correct record.  

The Mayor thanked Support our Paras for the recent successful Behind the Wire event and the Crunchy Frog Players for their recent show. 

The Mayor announced the forthcoming events:-

• Mayors Quiz, Mercury Theatre, 23 October 2024
• Remembrance Sunday, 10 November 2024 and Armistice Day, 11 November 2024
• Clairvoyant Night, Civic Suite, 29 November 2024

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS) that Full Council makes the Great Tey Neighbourhood Plan following its approval at referendum.  

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS) that the recommendation contained in the Monitoring Officer’s report be approved and adopted. 

RESOLVED that the recommendation contained in draft minute 884 of the Cabinet meeting of 4 September 2024 be approved and adopted. 

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS) that the recommendation contained in minute 464 of the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 12 March 2024 be approved and adopted. 

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS) that the recommendation contained in minute 440 of the Governance and Audit Committee meeting of 30 July 2024 be approved and adopted. 

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS) that the recommendation contained in draft minute 202 of the Licensing Committee meeting of 2 October 2024 be approved and adopted. 

Councillor Barber (in respect of his membership of the Council of Governors of East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust). Councillor Cory (as Chair of the North East Essex Health and Wellbeing Alliance) and Councillor Naylor (in respect of her forthcoming appointment to the Council of Governors of East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust) declared an Other Registerable Interest in this item pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 9(5). 

It was proposed by Councillor C. Spindler that:-

This Council calls on the East Suffolk and North Essex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to reconsider its proposals to outsource support services at Colchester Hospital. Given experience elsewhere raises serious concerns about the potential impact on patient care, staff job security, and the quality of public healthcare. The Council urges the Trust to explore alternative solutions that retain these vital services within the NHS, ensuring they remain publicly accountable. Failing which, that they publicly guarantee the jobs and conditions of employment of their staff, and the quality of service and care to their patients.

 
A main amendment was proposed by Councillor Scordis as follows:-

That the motion on Outsourcing Support Services at Colchester Hospital be approved and adopted subject to the following amendment:-

The deletion of the words  “Failing which, that they publicly guarantee the jobs and conditions of employment of their staff, and the quality of service and care to their patients.”

Councillor C. Spindler indicated that the main amendment was accepted and the motion was deemed amended accordingly.  The revised wording of the motion was as follows:

This Council calls on the East Suffolk and North Essex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to reconsider its proposals to outsource support services at Colchester Hospital. Given experience elsewhere raises serious concerns about the potential impact on patient care, staff job security, and the quality of public healthcare. The Council urges the Trust to explore alternative solutions that retain these vital services within the NHS, ensuring they remain publicly accountable. 

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

It was proposed by Councillor Dundas that:

Council notes:
• The Labour Government’s recent decision to restrict the Winter Fuel Payment to only pensioners in receipt of means-tested benefits like Pension Credit, as announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves.
• The estimated impact of this decision, which Age UK says will mean 2 million pensioners who badly need the money to stay warm this winter will not receive it.
• The significant role that Winter Fuel Payments play in helping older residents of Colchester City Council and across the UK afford heating during the coldest months, thereby preventing 'heat or eat' dilemmas and safeguarding health.
• The criticism from Age UK, the Countryside Alliance and other charities, highlighting the social injustice and potential health risks posed by this sudden policy change.
• The additional strain this decision will place on vulnerable pensioners, many of whom do not claim Pension Credit despite being eligible, further exacerbating their financial hardship.

Council believes:
• That the Winter Fuel Payment has been a lifeline for many older people across the UK and that restricting its availability solely to those on Pension Credit risks leaving many pensioners in financial hardship.
• While some pensioners currently in receipt of the Winter Fuel Payment may not require it, many thousands across the Colchester City area sit just above the cut-off for Pension Credit and will now lose their allowance.
• The decision to means-test Winter Fuel Payments, especially with such short notice and without adequate compensatory measures, is deeply unfair and will disproportionately affect the health and well-being of our poorest older residents.
• The government’s approach fails to consider the administrative barriers and stigma that prevent eligible pensioners from claiming Pension Credit, leaving many without the support they desperately need.

Council resolves to:
• Request that Cabinet bring forward a Council-led local awareness campaign to alert those eligible of Pension Credit which in some respects will help access to the Winter Fuel Payment for those most in need.
• Request that the Council Leader write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging a review of the decision to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment and asking the government to ensure that vulnerable pensioners, particularly those who do not claim Pension Credit, are protected from fuel poverty.
• Commit the Council to signing the ‘Save the Winter Fuel Payment for Struggling Pensioners’ petition being run by Age UK and write to all members offering them the opportunity to sign the petition themselves.

A main amendment was proposed by Councillor T. Young as follows:-

That the motion on Changes to the Winter Fuel Allowance and Protecting Pensioners from Fuel Poverty be approved and adopted subject to the following amendments:-

In the section “Council notes”-

The deletion of bullet points 2,3,4 and 5 and the insertion of the following words:-

• This decision, along with other tough economic measures, is having to be made due to the failings of the previous Conservative government who left a £22 billion black hole in the public finances.
• That there are over 800,000 pensioners, including many in Colchester, who are entitled to Pension Credit and do not claim it.
• That the previous Conservative government did not promote or support any campaigns to encourage those who were eligible to claim Pension Credit condemning them to unnecessary financial hardship.

In the section “Council believes”:-

In the first bullet point the deletion of the words “and that restricting its availability solely to those on Pension Credit risks leaving many pensioners in financial hardship.”

In the second bullet point the deletion of the word “While”, the substitution of the word “may” with “do” and the deletion of all words after “it”.

The deletion of bullet points 3 and 4.

The insertion of the following words:-

• The Government is right to guarantee the ‘Triple Lock’ for pensioners in Colchester and the UK which will see the full state pension rise by £460 a year from April 2025.


In the section “Council resolves to”

In the first bullet point the deletion of the words “Request that Cabinet bring forward a Council-led” and their replacement with the words “Support the Council’s” and the deletion of the words “in some respects” after the word “which”.

After the first bullet point the insertion of the following words:-

• Support the government’s commitment to protect the most vulnerable in our society by delivering the £150 Warm Homes discount for low-income households from October, extending the Household Support Fund with £421million, to ensure local authorities are able to support vulnerable people and families, ensuring around 1.3 million households in England and Wales, including many in Colchester, will continue to receive up to £300 in Winter Fuel Payments.

In the second bullet point the deletion of the words after “Exchequer” and their replacement with the words “asking her to ensure that vulnerable pensioners continue to be protected from fuel poverty by this government.”

The deletion of the third bullet point. 

Councillor Dundas indicated that the main amendment was not accepted.

Councillor King proposed a main amendment as follows:-

That the motion on Changes to the Winter Fuel Allowance and Protecting Pensioners from Fuel Poverty be approved and adopted subject to the following amendments:-

In the section “Council notes”

In the third bullet point the addition of the word “those” after the word “helping”, after the word “older” the insertion of the words “and or disabled”, after the word “residents the insertion of the words “or those who have long term illness” and the insertion of a full stop after the words “coldest months”.

In the section “Council resolves to:-“

In the first bullet point after the word “Cabinet” the deletion of the words “brings forward” and their replacement with the words “continues with”.

Councillor Dundas indicated that the main amendment was accepted and the motion was deemed amended accordingly.  The revised wording of the motion was:-

Council notes:

• The Labour Government’s recent decision to restrict the Winter Fuel Payment to only pensioners in receipt of means-tested benefits like Pension Credit, as announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves.
• The estimated impact of this decision, which Age UK says will mean 2 million pensioners who badly need the money to stay warm this winter will not receive it.
• The significant role that Winter Fuel Payments play in helping those older and or disabled residents or those who have long term illness of Colchester City Council and across the UK afford heating during the coldest months. Thereby preventing 'heat or eat' dilemmas and safeguarding health.
• The criticism from Age UK, the Countryside Alliance and other charities, highlighting the social injustice and potential health risks posed by this sudden policy change.
• The additional strain this decision will place on vulnerable pensioners, many of whom do not claim Pension Credit despite being eligible, further exacerbating their financial hardship.

Council believes:

• That the Winter Fuel Payment has been a lifeline for many older people across the UK and that restricting its availability solely to those on Pension Credit risks leaving many pensioners in financial hardship.
• While some pensioners currently in receipt of the Winter Fuel Payment may not require it, many thousands across the Colchester City area sit just above the cut-off for Pension Credit and will now lose their allowance.
• The decision to means-test Winter Fuel Payments, especially with such short notice and without adequate compensatory measures, is deeply unfair and will disproportionately affect the health and well-being of our poorest older residents.
• The government’s approach fails to consider the administrative barriers and stigma that prevent eligible pensioners from claiming Pension Credit, leaving many without the support they desperately need.

Council resolves to:

• Request that Cabinet continues with a Council-led local awareness campaign to alert those eligible of Pension Credit which in some respects will help access to the Winter Fuel Payment for those most in need.
• Request that the Council Leader write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging a review of the decision to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment and asking the government to ensure that vulnerable pensioners, particularly those who do not claim Pension Credit, are protected from fuel poverty.
• Commit the Council to signing the ‘Save the Winter Fuel Payment for Struggling Pensioners’ petition being run by Age UK and write to all members offering them the opportunity to sign the petition themselves.

On being put to the vote the main amendment proposed by Councillor T. Young was lost.

The substantive motion was then put to the vote and was carried (31 voted for, 9 voted against and 4 abstained from voting).

A named vote was requested pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 15(2) by Councillor Parsons, supported by Councillors Smithson and Laws, and the voting was as follows:-

FOR Councillors Appleton, Arnold, Barber, Bentley, Buston, Cory, Çufoglu , Davidson, Dundas, Ellis, Goss, Hagon, Jay, Kelly, King, Laws, Lissimore, Luxford Vaughan, McCarthy, Naylor, Parsons, Powling, Rowe, Smith, Smithson, Sommers, C. Spindler, M. Spindler, Sunnucks, Tate and Willetts.

AGAINST Councillors Alake-Akinyemi, Harris, MacLean, Rippingale, Scordis, Warnes, J. Young, T. Young and the Deputy Mayor (Lilley).

ABSTAINED FROM VOTING Councillors Goacher, Kirkby Taylor, Pearson and the Mayor (Scott-Boutell).

As the period to consider motions had already exceeded the 80 minutes set out in Council Procedure Rules 14(5) this motion was not considered by Council.

RESOLVED that the schedule of Portfolio Holder decisions covering the period 9 July 2024 to 8 October 2024 be noted.