Meeting Details

Jason Khan, Chair of Trustees of the Rollerworld Foundation, addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1).  The Rollerworld Foundation was a Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO) established with the aim of bringing back Rollerworld through support from grants and donations.  Rollerworld had been a very successful tourist attraction, supporting charities and contributing to the social and economic wellbeing of the city. The Foundation proposed a partnership whereby the Council funded the construction of Rollerworld 2 at Northern Gateway, which the Foundation would then operate and manage, on a rental basis.  This would provide a sustainable income generating asset for the Council.  They had experience of successfully collaborating with the Council on the Christmas Ice Slider.  Rollerworld 2 would provide a unique and inclusive space for skating, but also serve as a multi-use venue for live events and charitable activities, which would boost footfall and economic activity at Northern Gateway.  As a registered CIO Rollerworld was eligible for capital sized grants and other funding.  It would be able to contribute existing assets such as its unique maple flooring and would bring with it a dedicated support community. There was a real need for such a facility and they were repeatedly asked why the Council were not supporting them.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked Mr Khan and his fellow trustees for their proposal, which had been the subject of some discussion with the Council’s agents. The Council could not commit to this arrangement in this forum but acknowledged the public support for the facility.  There were several expressions of interest in facilities at Northern Gateway and the Council had a legal best value duty to maximise its commercial income and would need to test alternative proposals to secure this. They should reengage with the Council’s agents for further discussions on their proposal.

Ayse Uzun Demire addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1).  She worked as an immigration adviser in Colchester and had considerable knowledge of the lived experience of migrants.  As residents they were affected daily by the decisions of the Council but were not part of the decision making process. This exacerbated feelings of exclusion. They were part of the community and made a valuable contribution. They wished to express their views democratically, but this was not possible without voting.  Without the right to vote migrants could not feel a full and equal member of the community.  The Council should support the motion on the extension of the franchise.

Hind Dawi addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) in support of the motion on the extension of the franchise.  She explained that she was a PHD student at the University of Essex.  Whilst she was originally from Iraq she had lived in Colchester for several years and took an active part in community life.  The decisions taken by the Council affected her life, but she was unable to take part in decision making. As she lived in England she was also not allowed to vote in Iraq so it felt that her voice did not matter and that she was not listened to.  There was an unfairness as migrants were allowed to take part in the democratic process in Wales and Scotland but not in England.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy thanked the speakers for their contributions.  Colchester welcomed people of all backgrounds and was a City of Sanctuary with a good record of care and support to migrants and refugees.  By making representations to Council they were taking part in the democratic process.

Professor Ted Benton, President of Colchester Natural History Society, addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1).  He had worked with the Ministry of Defence on Middlewick 40 years ago to protect the last population of the Grayling butterfly.  It would have seemed inconceivable then that the site could be developed. Since then there had great interest from national and international experts in the site. It was now recognised as a site of national significance, particularly the diversity of the grassland habitat, which was a national priority habitat, and which supported diverse flora and fauna. This was part of Colchester’s heritage and its loss would be as significant as the destruction of the castle or the roman wall.  

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability, responded and explained that at the Inspection, the Inspector had been made aware of the flaws in the Stantec report and had strengthened the Plan accordingly.  The Council was very much aware of the ecological concerns about the site and had commissioned an independent report, and she believed that the Natural History Society had been consulted on this proposal.  The report would feed into the Local Plan Review, which would consider all the existing sites and those new sites which came forward following the call for sites.  Until this process had been completed, the Council could not remove any site from the Local Plan. 

Jean Quinn addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) to urge Councillors not to support the main amendment to the motion on 20s Plenty for Colchester.  Surveys had shown that 70% of the population supported a 20 mph speed limit.  This rose to 90% in areas where a 20 mph speed limit had been implemented.  If the main amendment was approved it would increase costs, and it was not clear where the budget for consultation with residents would come from.  It would also increase confusion on the issue. 20 mph was already used around many schools and it was time to take the next step.  The Council should show some leadership and be bold and support the unamended motion, which would save lives.  A number of authorities across the country of various political backgrounds had adopted the motion.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and thanked the speaker for helping bring this issue to Council.  This would enable Council to take a decision on the principle of 20 mph and take forward detailed discussions on the issue with Essex County Council.

Robbie Spence addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) to object to the Council’s policy of under enforcement of the requirement for planning permission to fly the Progress Pride flag.  The Progress Pride flag had recently been flown on top of Colchester Castle, at Colchester Institute and on the wall of the publicly funded Colchester Arts Centre. He had complained about this to the Council’s Planning Department, who had said that they did not enforce the requirement for planning permission. He believed this represented a dangerous and harmful ideology and did not represent inclusivity. Failure to address this would lead to an increase in support for far right groups. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked the speaker for his comments.  It was accepted that there was a range of views of gender identity, and that the debate on this issue may be uncomfortable for some.  However, this was not an issue for the Council to resolve.  What was important that any debate was approached in a calm fashion that narrowed division and increased understanding.

Brian Reece addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) to raise issues about sovereignty and highlighting the contradiction between the theory that the Council works for the people and that the people owned everything within the Council, and the Council’s ability to take away people’s property and bankrupt or imprison them. The law was clear that no individual or group of individuals could knowingly cause harm but harm was caused when people’s property or money was taken away. Evidence needed to be produced that Parliament had the legal authority to create obligations for the people of the United Kingdom, and that they could cause people harm, as the public were confused on this issue. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and explained that Parliament’s website set out in detail the evolution of law and statute and the development of the constitution. The Council received its authority from Parliament, but also from its electorate to whom it was accountable. The Council did not have the power to seize homes or make people bankrupt. This was done by courts after due consideration of evidence. 

Glynn Evans addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 5(1) to express his concern about the Council’s recent record on ecology and biodiversity. There had a been several issues which had caused concern recently including allowing a developer to damage 150 metres of dormouse breeding habitat at Salary Brook and accepting without sanction a retrospective survey denying their presence and a pledge to plant 200,000 trees across the city leading to degradation of grassland habitat. It had also failed to appoint an inhouse ecologist meaning there was no effective scrutiny of ecology reports supporting development and it had placed the city’s most important ecological area in the Local Plan. It seemed that wildlife was an inconvenience to Colchester. Since the Council declared a Climate Emergency in 2019 a number of local bodies had asked the Council to remove their names from literature which implied a partnership with the Council. Councils were under a statutory duty to have a biodiversity policy.  How and when would the Council invite experts back to the table?

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability, responded.  Officers had thoroughly investigated the possibility of prosecution for the damage to the dormouse breeding site but previous case law had indicated this would not have been successful. The tree planting programme across the city had been changed because of his advice, which showed that the Council was listening. It was not a statutory requirement for the Council to have an inhouse ecologist, and whilst this would be preferable, it was not possible due to the financial pressures the Council faced and the need to prioritise key frontline services. The Council used independent ecologists or those from partner organisations where necessary, which gave it the scope to get relevant expert opinions. No evidence in respect of Middlewick had been suppressed and she was not aware of any organisations seeking to distance themselves from the Council.  The Council had also accepted his evidence in respect of the Hythe Taskforce and on the Tarmac development. The Council did meet its statutory responsibilities and listen and act where it could on issues that were brought to its attention.  It was hoped that he would continue to advise the Council as his views were welcomed. 

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2024 were confirmed as a correct record.  

The Mayor invited Council to stand in silence for a minute in memory of former Councillor Mannion who had recently died.

The Mayor read out a letter from the High Steward, Sir Bob Russell, confirming that the Shrub End War Memorial had been reopened following its refurbishment and passing on thanks from the Shrub End War Memorial Group to the Council for the financial contribution it had made towards the refurbishment.  It also highlighted the contribution made by the late former councillor Kevin Starling towards saving the war memorial. 

The Mayor made a presentation to Robert Needham, who was retiring from his role as Town Crier and thanked him for his service.

The Mayor invited members to the Civic Carol Service on 15 December 2024 at St Albrights Church. 

The Mayor expressed her concern about the tone of some contributions at the last Full Council meeting and reminded members of the need to ensure that debates were undertaken with the framework of the Nolan principles and as Chair of Full Council would ensure that debates were conducted in a respectful manner. 

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS) that Councillor Ellis be nominated for appointment as Deputy Mayor for the City of Colchester for the 2025-26 municipal year.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS) that the recommendation contained in draft minute 908 of the Cabinet meeting of 27 November 2024 be approved and adopted. 

RESOLVED that the recommendation contained in draft minute 911 of the Cabinet meeting of 27 November 2024 be approved and adopted. 

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS) that the Governance and Audit Committee Annual Report 2023-24 be approved and adopted. 

Councillor Bentley (as the Leader of Essex County Council) and Councillor Lissimore (as Chair of Essex County Council’s Local Highways Panel for Colchester) declared an Other Registerable Interest in this item and left the meeting for the duration of its consideration and determination.
 
It was proposed by Councillor J. Young that:-

This Council 
  
a. Supports the 20s Plenty for Colchester campaign. 
 
b. Calls upon Essex County Council to implement 20mph in Colchester;  
 
c. Resolves to write to Essex County Council to request 20mph speed limits on streets throughout the authority where people live, work, play or learn, and that 30mph speed limits only be used as the exception and only after full consideration of the needs of vulnerable road users. 


A main amendment was proposed by Councillor Dundas, supported by Councillor Arnold, as follows:-

That the motion on 20’s Plenty for Colchester be approved and adopted subject to the following changes:  
 
The removal of the wording “20mph in Colchester” from paragraph ‘b’ and the substitution of the wording “20’s Plenty across Colchester’s urban and rural areas where clearly supported by residents.” 
 
In paragraph ‘c’, the addition of the words “where communities support reducing speeds” following the word “authority”.  

In paragraph ‘c’ the words “and that 30mph speed limits only be used as the exception and only after full consideration of the needs of vulnerable road users.” be replaced with the words “and that investment in sustainable travel and consultation with public transport providers is encouraged after full consideration of the needs of vulnerable road users.” 

Councillor J. Young indicated that the main amendment was not accepted and the motion and the main amendment were then debated.  On being put to the vote the main amendment was carried (twenty six voted for, sixteen voted against and one abstained from voting).  The revised wording of the motion was therefore as follows:-

This Council: 
  
a) Supports the 20’s Plenty For Colchester campaign; 
 
b) Calls upon Essex County Council to implement 20’s Plenty across Colchester’s urban and rural areas where clearly supported by residents; 
 
c) Resolves to write to Essex County Council to request 20mph speed limits on streets throughout the authority where communities support reducing speeds, where people live, work, play or learn and that investment in sustainable travel and consultation with public transport providers is encouraged after full consideration of the needs of vulnerable road users. 

The motion was then put to the vote and was approved and adopted unanimously.

It was proposed by Councillor Sunnucks that:

This Council notes that 
 
1. Colchester built 19,817 dwellings in the last 20 years , more than any other town in Essex.  Its population grew by 23%  over a similar period without proportionate improvements to its transport and other infrastructure 
2. As a result Colchester bears a disproportionate share of the Essexwide £11billion deficit in transport infrastructure . 
3. Colchester’s housebuilding target has increased by 40%, implying an acceleration in its annual population growth to 1.6% per annum  
4. Developers can reasonably be expected to fund directly related infrastructure, but funding for major roads must come from other sources because their costs are so high and their benefits so widespread 
5. Residents will resist development if they see that their lives will be impacted by congestion and too few schools, GPs and other services 
 
This Council therefore resolves that: 
 
1. ?It will write to MHCLG explaining that Colchester cannot meet its new housing targets without Government funding for the necessary infrastructure.  In particular we need the promised A12 upgrade to three lanes from Chelmsford to Marks Tey, the A120 dualling from Braintree to the A12 and the full A1331 Link Road between the A133 and A120 at Tendring-Colchester Borders, without which our residents will experience gridlock 
 
2. The infrastructure audit commissioned in 2022 will be completed in advance of the Local Plan review and we will plan new housing on an ‘infrastructure first’ basis. 


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

That the motion on Infrastructure First be approved and adopted subject to the following amendment:  
 
The First sentence of paragraph 1 following the wording “The Council therefore resolves that:” be deleted and replaced with the following wording: 
 
1. It will write to MHCLG welcoming the Government’s commitment to tackling the housing crisis and the declaration of Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community as an accelerator site but urges Government to provide funding for the necessary infrastructure needed.  

Councillor Sunnucks indicated that the main amendment was not accepted and the motion and the main amendment were then debated.  On being put to the vote the main amendment was lost (nineteen voted for, twenty two voted against).

The motion was then put to the vote and was approved and adopted. 

Councillor Cox (in respect of her position as Member of Parliament for Colchester) declared an Other Registerable Interest in the following item and left the meeting for the duration of its consideration and determination.

It was proposed by Councillor Çufoglu that:-

This Council notes:

• That all residents, no matter their nationality, bring significant value to the area.
• One in six usual residents of England and Wales were born outside the UK.
• 14.51% of Colcestrians were born abroad and 6.75% are from Europe, 4.26% are from Middle East and Asia, 2.28% are from Africa, 0.96% is from the Americas and the Caribbean, and 0.26% Antarctica and Oceania (including Australasia) and Other.
• One in four usual residents of Castle ward were born outside the UK.
• Around one in four residents of Greenstead Ward and Mile End Ward were born outside the UK.
• Over 1 million residents across England and Northern Ireland do not have a right to vote.
• Scotland and Wales have extended the franchise to allow all residents with lawful immigration status to vote.
• A poll conducted by Number Cruncher showed that 63% of people agree that all residents should have the right to vote in local elections in England and Northern Ireland.
• The current complexity in voting eligibility causes confusion and will reduce voter turnout in local elections amongst migrant voters, a group which already has a disproportionately lower voter registration rate compared to British voters.
• 15 local authorities across England have passed motions asking for the right to vote to be extended to all residents in local elections.

This Council commits to:

• Write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the relevant shadow frontbenchers requesting that the franchise for local elections be extended to all qualifying foreign nationals in England and Northern Ireland in line with eligibility criteria in Scotland and Wales.
• Write to the local Members of Parliament asking for their support in Parliament to see the right to vote extended to all residents in local elections.
• Deliver training to councillors and relevant officers on the changes brought by the Elections Act so that residents can be accurately informed about their voting rights.
• Work collaboratively with voluntary sector organisations in our city area to reach residents about voter eligibility rules and how to vote.
• Continue promoting voter registration and photo ID requirements to residents at, events, and other communication channels, and expand it to citizenship ceremonies as well.

Councillor Alake-Akinyemi proposed a main amendment as follows:-

That the motion on Extension of the Franchise be approved and adopted subject to the following amendments: 

In respect of the bullet points following the wording “This Council commits to:”

The addition of the wording “and to review the arrangements regarding photo ID requirements and the restrictions on postal voting.” at the end of the first bullet point.

The addition of the wording “and to support a review into photo ID requirements and postal voting.” at the end of the second bullet point. 

The addition of the wording “while also campaigning for positive changes to extend the franchise and encourage participation in the democratic process.” at the end of the fifth bullet point.

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

This Council notes:

• That all residents, no matter their nationality, bring significant value to the area.
• One in six usual residents of England and Wales were born outside the UK.
• 14.51% of Colcestrians were born abroad and 6.75% are from Europe, 4.26% are from Middle East and Asia, 2.28% are from Africa, 0.96% is from the Americas and the Caribbean, and 0.26% Antarctica and Oceania (including Australasia) and Other.
• One in four usual residents of Castle ward were born outside the UK.
• Around one in four residents of Greenstead Ward and Mile End Ward were born outside the UK.
• Over 1 million residents across England and Northern Ireland do not have a right to vote.
• Scotland and Wales have extended the franchise to allow all residents with lawful immigration status to vote.
• A poll conducted by Number Cruncher showed that 63% of people agree that all residents should have the right to vote in local elections in England and Northern Ireland.
• The current complexity in voting eligibility causes confusion and will reduce voter turnout in local elections amongst migrant voters, a group which already has a disproportionately lower voter registration rate compared to British voters.
• 15 local authorities across England have passed motions asking for the right to vote to be extended to all residents in local elections.

This Council commits to:

• Write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the relevant shadow frontbenchers requesting that the franchise for local elections be extended to all qualifying foreign nationals in England and Northern Ireland in line with eligibility criteria in Scotland and Wales and to review the arrangements regarding photo ID requirements and the restrictions on postal voting.
• Write to the local Members of Parliament asking for their support in Parliament to see the right to vote extended to all residents in local elections and to support a review into photo ID requirements and postal voting.
• Deliver training to councillors and relevant officers on the changes brought by the Elections Act so that residents can be accurately informed about their voting rights.
• Work collaboratively with voluntary sector organisations in our city area to reach residents about voter eligibility rules and how to vote.
• Continue promoting voter registration and photo ID requirements to residents at, events, and other communication channels, and expand it to citizenship ceremonies as well while also campaigning for positive changes to extend the franchise and encourage participation in the democratic process.

On being put to the vote the motion was approved and adopted (twenty five voted for, fourteen voted against and four abstained from voting).

A named vote was requested pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 15(2) by Councillor Çufoglu, supported by Councillors Goacher and Kirkby-Taylor, and the voting was as follows:-

FOR:  Councillors Alake-Akinyemi, Arnold, Cory, Çufoglu, Goacher, Goss, Harris, Jay, King, Kirkby-Taylor, Law, Luxford Vaughan, Mclean, Moffat, Osborne, Scordis, Smalls, Smith, Sommers, C. Spindler, M. Spindler, Warnes, J. Young, T. Young and the Deputy Mayor (Lilley).  

AGAINST:  Councillors Buston, Davidson, Dundas, Ellis, Laws, Lissimore, Maclean, Naylor, Parsons, Powling, Rowe, Smithson, Sunnucks and Willetts.

ABSTAINED FROM VOTNG:  Councillors Appleton, Kelly, Tate and the Mayor (Scott-Boutell).

It was agreed that written responses would be sent to the pre-notified questions.