855
Professor Jane Black attended remotely and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) about the proposed Ferry Marsh Nature Reserve Improvements. Ferry Marsh was gifted to provide public open space and the Council signed a covenant to that effect. It was the only open pace for housing built south of the railway line in the first two decades of the century. It had been open to the pubic for 18 years before being shut after the flooding incident. Whilst the legal advice on whether the proposal to restrict access where consistent with the covenant was not public, it was understood that the earlier advice was that the paths around the site and the small loop proposed were adequate to meet the covenant. The boundary paths were already accessible before the gift of the land so if the proposals were approved there would be little additional benefit stemming from the gift of the land. Whist the Council had a duty to support biodiversity it should also provide green space for residents. Unfortunately, biodiversity and access could conflict and the proposal did not seem to strike the right balance between protecting wildlife and providing public access. A compromise was needed such as restrict access to the path across the Marsh and either banning dogs or requiring them to be kept on a lead. A proposal to provide some internal water control measures to prevent the Marsh from drying out was also desirable, but water levels should not be so high as to result in flooding. This could be provided via scrapes rather than raising the water level above the ditches. Greater clarity was needed on the proposed water levels. In terms of consultation, the plan shown in Appendix B of the report was not shown on the consultation boards. Whist she had supported restricting access, this did not mean she supported the closure of the path over the Marsh.
Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability responded. Officers had been asked to respond on several points. The seawall path should be accessible to pedestrians only. The legal advice was not conclusive. On water levels, the sluice would prevent flooding and the council was working closely with Essex Wildlife Trust and Natural England who approved of the measures. The levels would be monitored over the long term and expert advice would be taken on how it would impact on biodiversity. It would be difficult to control all dog owners and prevent dogs getting access to the breeding areas. The council had done the right amount of research and the proposals would prevent flooding and secure access to the Wivenhoe Trail. As a compromise it was the best that could be achieved.
Pauline Hazell attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) about the provision of Interpretation Boards for Gosbecks Archaeological Park. This had been raised by Mike Hardy on 22nd November 2023, providing the background to repeated requests for such boards covering the late Iron Age, and the details of the extant proposal made during the Conservatives’ period in control. The Portfolio Holder (former Councillor Burrows) had undertaken to investigate the matter and discuss with officers and had responded that she had been advised that the funding had been used for the upkeep of the space, such as grass-cutting. Mr Hardy explained that this was not credible but former Councillor Burrows made no further comment. A subsequent Freedom of Information request established that the balance of the Gosbecks Reserve on 31st March 2024 was £70,321.32. Therefore the response provided was inaccurate, thoroughly unprofessional and unacceptable. Widening the scope of the City’s heritage was in its best interest. The project was drafted, the supporting artwork identified and available. The outline costing was established and the non-taxpayer funding was available. Would the Leader now provide assurance that the proposal would be taken seriously, and would he ensure it was implemented with diligence and alacrity? She was willing to co-operate in any way that is helpful.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that there had been some misunderstanding and miscommunication on this issue. He would take the proposal seriously and would raise it with Councillor Sommers and the lead officers. His personal view was that there was scope to look at instructional signage and information. A long term strategy on the use of the dowry should also be developed.
Councillor Law attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to request the council look at exempting military compensation from means testing benefits including housing benefit, council tax support, discretionary housing payments and disabled facilities grants, in view of its commitment to armed forces personnel. She also expressed her support for the proposals in respect of St Johns and Highwoods Community Centre.
Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, explained that this was already Council policy. The Council had achieved the Gold Standard for the support it provided to armed forces personnel and their families. Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, indicated that a note would be sent to all members confirming the position.
The Democratic Services Manager read a statement from Councillor Lee Scordis to Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) about anti-social behaviour in the city centre caused by street drinkers on the High Street. This was damaging Colchester’s reputation. The police were not taking any action and claimed not have any records which suggested that there were still operational issues with the police. This issue had been previously resolved by the “Team Ten” established by Councillor Lilley when he was Portfolio Holder, which enforced the Public Space Protection Order. However, matters appear to have regressed and the city centre was becoming more unwelcoming, which was bad for business and the council.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, indicated he would write to Councillor Scordis. Where anti-social behaviour the council would intervene, as it had done successfully at St Marys car park. As Portfolio Holder, Councillor Sommers had picked up this issue and reported it to the police and was seeking to establish the scale of the issue.
Councillor Naylor attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to express concern that in view of the pre-election period, two members of the Cabinet were absent from the meeting. Were they just absent from the meeting or were they absent from their roles during the pre-election period? If so, how were their roles being conducted and were they still receiving their special responsibility allowance? There was also concern in the Conservative group about some of the items on the agenda, given the meeting was in the pre-election period, including the housing report. This report dealt with national matters and should not have been brought forward. The Leader should reconsider its inclusion on the agenda.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio for Strategy, explained that it was important for the city that the administration did what it can to maintain the business of the authority and to give direction to officers. The agenda was “business as usual” items. The housing report was an important contextual report for the forthcoming work on the Housing Revenue Account review and if he had considered it had been politicised it would not be on the agenda. It was apolitical in its presentation and that was how the meeting would be conducted. He was content that the meeting should proceed and the housing report be considered. He had taken advice from the Monitoring Officer in reaching this decision. The absence of the two Portfolio Holders reflected acceptance of the need to ensure there was no conflict of interest and no possibility of a perception that they were taking advantage of their position for a political purpose. They were performing their roles and would continue to receive their allowance.
Councillor Sunnucks attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet. He considered that whenever issues about the housing strategy were raised, it was always blamed on central government and no responsibility was taken by the administration. The way the report was presented was to shift blame and not to accept responsibility to deal with the housing situation. It was clear from the recent Scrutiny Panel meeting that the Council’s housing strategy did not work. The administration had rejected the Conservative budget amendment which would have moderated spend. The Conservative group, which was the biggest group on Council, did have ideas on how to deal with housing, but had no opportunity to communicate them. Have Your Say! slots at meetings did not provide sufficient time to put over complex proposals. A meeting or convention should be called, possibly after the election, where all parties could put forward ideas to try and find a solution to this problem. As the lead shadow Portfolio Holder for Resources, he was entitled to raise these issues and his views were aligned with those of Councillor Ellis as shadow Portfolio Holder for Housing. If the administration would not arrange such a meeting, he would do so himself.
Pam Donnelly, Chief Executive, stressed that the report was an officer report written by the Chief Executive of Colchester Borough Homes and Head of Strategic Housing and was not a political report. Any statements made about national policy were a matter of fact and not conjecture.
Councillor Smith, Portfolio Holder for Housing, highlighted that the Scrutiny Panel had not accepted the arguments that Councillor Sunnucks had made. As Portfolio Holder he held regular meetings with the Labour and Conseravative shadow Portfolio Holders and they were free to put forward any proposals at these meetings. He was willing to consider ideas from any quarter to help deal with the housing crisis.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, undertook to meet with Councillor Sunnucks and highlighted that the processes by which the administration worked allowed for engagement with the Portfolio Holder and with officers. However, it was expected that the shadow Portfolio Holder on Housing would lead on such issues. The review of the Council’s assets which was underway would touch on these issues and would be conducted in a cross party way.
Melina Spanditaki addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1)to query whether democratic procedures had been followed in respect of her proposals for the use of Holy Trinity Church. This had been presented to the Full Council meeting and she had been encouraged by the Portfolio Holder to keep communicating. However, she had received an e-mail from the Leader of the Council via the Head of Economic Growth, dismissing her bid. She had not had the opportunity to visit the church to provide an exact costing, rather than an estimate. The bid from Community 360 did not address the issues faced by those in temporary accommodation. There was also an issue of transparency in that it was claimed that relations with Community 360 were frozen yet their bid was progressing. Her bid should be reconsidered in line with democratic processes and in vview of the representation of Castle ward by Green party councillors.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that decisions on issues such as planning permissions were taken by Committees acting in the interests of the whole city, rather than just based on ward interest, although local views would always be considered in such decision making. Democratic processes had been followed. In terms of Community 360, there were discussions ongoing between them and their partners. He was not involved in those discussions. It would be several years before Holy Trinity Church was renovated and decisions on final use had not been taken.