Meeting Details

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 10 July 2024 be confirmed as a correct record.

Alan Short attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1).  There now appeared to be a surplus of student accommodation in Colchester. The unnecessary plans to lease Painter’s Yard to Alumno for 336 student flats had been an expensive disaster. The University had said there was no need for the accommodation.  The planned development of student flats was an expensive and unnecessary mistake which should be investigated by the Scrutiny Panel.  When the Design Council were asked for their views on the Alumno plans, one of their comments was that if student flats were to be built they should be larger so if demand was not there they could be used for other purposes. Concern was expressed that under the proposal to use student accommodation for temporary accommodation, the privately designed student flats would be tiny and often with shared kitchens. They could be even less suitable than some hotel accommodation. There were also significant tax implications which need to be considered. It was understood that the Council were considering some form of prefabricated temporary dwellings, which was a preferable idea. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, indicated that the issues around Alumno would be referred to Scrutiny Panel at the appropriate point, but this was not now. There were approximately 370 households in temporary accommodation and the Council had a duty to house them and was looking to do so in the most cost effective way whilst maintaining standards. The accommodation was being looked at in detail to ensure it was fit for purpose. It was better than some of the alternative provision such as bed and breakfast accommodation. As it was located within the city, it would help maintain local links and support networks. It would also be well managed. Prefabricated units had been looked at but had not been financially viable. 

Ed Barratt attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to express his concern that in June 2024 a private company had undertaken tree surgery on eight trees in the Garrison Conservation Area without written permission, as far as could be ascertained. All the trees were of significance and were part of the original nineteenth century plan for the Garrison. Some were on the site of the Roman Circus. They had heritage, community, aesthetic and environmental value. This raised a number of legal issues, such as the legality of the work being done without permission, that it was done in nesting season and therefore whether the necessary surveys had been undertaken. There had been other examples of apparently unauthorised works to trees in the area. The Cabinet should undertake an investigation into what took place and how, and publish the outcome. 

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability, that permission had been granted for works to trees in the area.  They were aware of his concerns and those expressed by Councillors. The Planning  Enforcement Team needed more specific detail about exactly which trees had been affected, in order to progress an investigation. If there was a case, they would consider a prosecution.  She would be happy to discuss the issue outside of the meeting and put him in touch with relevant officers. However it needed to be stressed that the Planning Enforcement Team had a strong history of action and punched above its weight.

Councillor Law attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet to ask how routine maintenance, such as cutting back and checking site safety, was planned and implemented at sites such as the former rugby club field off Mill Road and in Highwoods Country Park, especially where trees bordered residential properties. 

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure, explained that sites were split into three safety zones.  Zone 1 were inspected annually, Zone 2 bi-annually and and Zone 3 every 3-5 years. Individual trees were only recorded by exception so that if a defect or risk of failure was recorded, tree works were scheduled to mitigate any risks. In respect of Mill Road, the vegetation at the back of Oxley Park would be cleared shortly. General inspections of sites such as the Country Park were made every two weeks with any issues noted and maintenance works programmed. The Council cut its own land 8 times per year over the summer months, and work was undertaken on behalf of Essex County Council six times per year for which some funding was received and conversations were underway to try receive further funding for this. Highway borders were cut on behalf of Essex County Council twice a year. 

Sir Bob Russell attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to ask the following questions:-

• What was the budget for grounds maintenance for (a) the financial year 2022-23 (i.e. 2 years ago); and (b) the current financial year?
• Of these sums, how much was allocated to the company outsourced by the Council to undertake grounds maintenance in each of those two financial years?
• In each of those financial years, how many grounds staff were (c) employed directly by the Council, and (d) by the out-sourced company?
• Would the Council bring the out-sourced grounds maintenance contract back “in-house” when the current contract ends?

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure, explained that similar questions had been raised through a Freedom of Information request that had already been responded to.  Due to commercial sensitivities, the budget for the grounds maintenance could not be confirmed.  The Council did not employ separate grounds maintenance staff. There had been some earlier consideration of the future of the grounds maintenance contract and it was his personal view that it should be brought back in house.  However, the decision on the future of the contract, which had 18 months to run, would go through the Council’s formal decision making processes in due course.

Followng further comments from Sir Bob Russell, Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, indicated that he would look again at provision of the information about the grounds maintenance budget.

Councillor Warnes, attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet about a property in his ward which had stood empty for seven months. The social landlord was considering selling the property because it was too expensive to repair.  Council officers had declined to help persuade the social landlord to change their mind or to look at acquiring the property so that it remained available to homeless families in Colchester. The Portfolio Holders for Housing and Planning should step in and do more to help save this property and give hope to a homeless family in need of housing.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, indicated that he understood the concern and the desire to bring the property into use.  However, the property had extensive damage and the Council had no power to compel the landlord to undertake the work.  More widely the administration was working to maximise the housing available and to raise its standard, and was being supported in this by the Labour Group. 

Councillor Sommers, Portfolio Holder for Communities, Heritage and Public Protection, and Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability, also responded to stress that the Council had no control over socially rented properties not owned by the Council and no powers to compel the landlord to undertake works. If it was unviable for the landlord to undertake the works, it was likely to be unviable for the Council also. It would be more cost effective to use funding for new builds A comprehensive response had been sent to Councillor Warnes, but  a further review of the position would be undertaken. 

The Chief Executive, Colchester Borough Homes, submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member. 

Councillor Sommers, Portfolio Holder for Communities, Heritage and Public Protection introduced the report.  The proposals of the new government were welcomed, particularly the indication that legislation to ban section 21 evictions would be brought forward. Overall the proposals were a step in the right direction.

In discussion, Cabinet members highlighted that they were also some challenges coming forward, such as the increased focus on regulation in the housing sector and the increased expectations of tenants. There would need to be an increase in the resources devoted to housing to meet these challenges. 
 
RESOLVED that the contents of the report be noted.
 
REASONS 

The Chief Executive’s report provided Cabinet with an update on topical housing related issues. 
 
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 

No alternative options were presented to Cabinet. 

Cabinet considered the motion on housing approved at the Council meeting on 17 July 2024, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, introduced the motion which had been approved unanimously at Full Council. It set out the issues on which the Council should lobby government, although it was appreciated that it would not be possible for Colchester to implement a unilateral moratorium on Right to Buy.

In discussion Cabinet members stressed that the previous two items highlighted the administration’s commitment to tackle the housing crisis.  However, the Council needed support from government and the motion identified how this support could be provided. Government needed to take some radical steps to help councils deal with the increased costs of building more council housing.  A national moratorium on Right to Buy was also needed as it had led to a significant reduction in number of Council housing available, both in Colchester and nationally. 

Because Colchester could not implement a unilateral moratorium on Right to Buy it was agreed that the word “Colchester” should be deleted from paragraph e.

RESOLVED that the motion be approved and adopted subject to the removal of the word “Colchester” in paragraph e.
 
REASONS 

The motion had been approved unanimously at Full Council. It set out the support needed from government to help the Council tackle the housing crisis. 

As Colchester could not implement a unilateral moratorium on Right to Buy it was necessary to delete that the word “Colchester” from paragraph e

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 

It was open to Cabinet not to adopt the motion.

The Section 151 Officer submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member. 

Councillor Willetts attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet. One of the central elements of the Medium Term Financial Forecast (MTFF) had been the use of commercial income to support the Council’s services. However there was only one significant reference to commercial income in the Section 151 Officer’s report, which was a reference to the Turnstone project.  This project had been subject to action in the High Court this week where Cineworld had been seeking approval to their restructuring programme. It would appear from these discussions that any income generated by the Turnstone project would be used to support hedge funds rather than frontline services. The Council was a low priority group creditor and therefore there was a risk of a significant gap in the MTFF and its robustness was therefore in question.  The Council should make a public statement on this issue, as it was being discussed in the national and local press and not to comment would tarnish the Council’s reputation and cause concern to residents.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked Councillor Willetts for his comments. Commercial income remained an important element of the MTFF. The Fit for the Future programme set out how the Council would deliver on raised income and reduced costs and would involve looking at the work of the commercial companies and the income they generated. Proposals relating to this would be brought forward in due course. In terms of the Turnstone project, it would be inappropriate to go into detail about this in public session.  More detailed information was being shared with representatives of the political groups and more information would be shared publicly in due course. It remained an attractive site for potential investment, once the current challenges had been worked through.  A press release had been issued which acknowledged the issues in measured language.

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, stressed that the administration was working cross party to keep groups informed and updated. All Group Leaders had been briefed on the position and were in position to update their groups.  

Councillor Harris attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Cabinet to echo Councillor Law’s comments on the grounds maintenance contract. There was a real risk of reputational damage and the Council needed to do better. Issues around car parking at the Abbey Field surgery were also raised.  Funding had been set aside for a play park in the area but building had not yet commenced.  There was an opportunity to discuss with the community whether they would wish to see the resources being used to address car parking issues instead.

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure, responded and explained that the Council cut the majority of Colchester on behalf of Essex County Council. Their policy was to cut their own land twice a year whilst the City the Council cut their land six times a year. Therefore the Council’s budget was subsidising the work to cut the County Council’s land. The Council was seeking further funding from Essex County Council. The City Council cut its own land eight times per year. The reputational point was accepted but there were real budget pressures which were exacerbated by the lack of funding from the County Council.  In terms of the issue about the Abbey Field surgery car parking, work on the play park was imminent.   It was not for the Council to give up much needed green space for car parking.

Pam Donnelly, Chief Executive, responded on the issue of reputational damage. This was also a concern for her and these issues were being discussed across all local authorities as there was an imbalance between the demands on local government and the expectations of residents , and the resources available to deliver services and meet those expectations. The issue of car parking and play park was a good example of the competing demands the Council faced. The decision on whether to proceed would be a political one but she understood contracts had been issued and that work on the play park would begin soon.  She did not know why it had been so delayed but it was likely to be welcomed by residents.

Councillor Cory introduced the report. It provided an update from previous reports and laid the foundations for next year’s budget. It set out the current deficit and how the Fit for the Future programme would address this and generate a surplus in 2026/27.  Given the other pressures the Council was facing a deficit was forecast in subsequent years.  Commercial income remained important but was included within service budgets rather than being identified separately. The Council was reducing its costs and increasing income to set a balanced budget. The Council had a prudent approach to reserves, ensuring they were not depleted but using them where necessary to tackle difficult issues. The report set out the impact of inflation and how inflationary pressures would be dealt with.  The Business Plan of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) was also being reviewed.  This would go beyond the period of budget setting for 2025/26 so an interim judgement on the HRA would need to be made to feed into the budget process for 2025/26.

Councillor King thanked the Council's finance team for their work.  The budget process was being brought forward which would increase transparency and opportunity for scrutiny of the budget proposals by members. 

 
RESOLVED that:- 

(a) The contents of the Section 151 Officer’s report be noted, including:

• The General Fund element of the updated Medium-Term Financial Forecast (2025/26 to 2029/30) (Appendix A); and

• The Housing Revenue Account element of the updated Medium-Term Financial Forecast (2025/26 to 2029/30) (Appendix B).

(b) Cabinet identified the following key issues for emphasis:

• The position of the Council’s commercial companies and the importance of commercial income they generated; 
• The HRA review would not be completed in time for the budget setting process for 2025/26 and that an interim judgement would need to be made to feed into the 2025/26 budget process.
 
REASONS 

To provide an updated financial position for the Council based on latest available information, allowing Cabinet to consider the implications and potential options available, and provide strategic direction to senior officers in preparing a (balanced) draft budget for 2025/26.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 

The Section 151 Officer’s report provided a tentative look at the Council’s financial picture over the next five years (2025/26 through to 2029/30) and set the scene by providing a framework for developing both the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budgets for 2025/26. The information disclosed – including financial statistics – was predominantly for illustrative purposes and noting.

However, Cabinet was invited to discuss and agree a range of options, including those for addressing the underlying budget deficit to set a balanced budget for 2025/26. 

The Section 151 Officer submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member. 

Councillor Pearson attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Cabinet. He was pleased that the capital programme review was nearing completion. He had been a ward councillor for Berechurch for over 10 years and in that period it had received no capital investment. There had been considerable capital investment in other wards which did not have the same level of need.  The need for investment in Greenstead was acknowledged but based on the aggregate of the indices of deprivation, he believed that Berechurch was the second most deprived ward in the city. When the capital programme was being reviewed, Cabinet should consider the use of capital investment to develop a community centre in Berechurch.  There was a potential site on the Monkwick Estate, owned by the Catholic Church, which was used infrequently. A package could be developed to draw in external funding which would allow the site to be developed. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, stressed that the administration took account of deprivation and need in its decision making, as was shown by the investment in the Heart of Greenstead project. He would be happy to discuss the proposal further and would ask the Communities team to consider potential options and sources of funding, such as section 106 funding.  Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, highlighted that most community centres across the city had been developed through planning gain, although it was appreciated that Berechurch received relatively little in terms of planning gain. 

Councillor Cory introduced the report which set out the impact of increased costs, such as ICT and increased insurance premiums, on the capital programme.  It also addressed how the new approach to asset management would impact on the capital programme. 
 
RESOLVED that:- 

(a) The contents of the Section 151 Officer’s report be noted, including both the updated General Fund and Housing Revenue Account Capital Programmes (2025/26 to 2029/30) at Appendix A; and

(b) Options for the delivery of capital investment in Berechurch ward be explored;

(c) To ensure the effective delivery of the capital programme there should be a continued emphasis on high quality project management and delivery.

REASONS 

To provide an updated (initial) draft Capital Programme for the Cabinet’s consideration, to allow discussion and direction in the further development of the Programme to balance the need to deliver on the Council’s corporate priorities, whilst maintaining a balanced budget and achieving long-term financial sustainability.
 
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 

The Section 151 Officer’s report provided an initial look at the Council’s potential capital commitments over the next five years (2025/26 to 2029/30) and set the context for the estimated capital financing costs included in the updated Medium-Term Financial Forecast (MTFF) 2025/26 to 2029/30, included elsewhere on the agenda for this meeting.

Cabinet was invited to discuss and agree (from a range of options) actions required for the further refinement of the Capital Programme as part of developing integrated draft budget proposals for further consideration by Cabinet in November 2024.

The Shared Director of ICT and Transformation submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Mel Kemp Salt, Shared Director of ICT and Transformation, was invited to present the report and stressed the importance of customer experience. As part of the Fit for the Future portfolio a commitment had been made to improve the customer experience in the context of the digital customer programme. A similar commitment had been given by a partnership council, Epping Forest District Council. The project would address three key elements: website; customer platform and customer experience. The proposals sought to align technology and the delivery of technological solutions across the two councils. This would leverage benefits of working together, increased buying power and shared expertise. There were pressing needs for Colchester, including the need to move the website onto a more specialist platform, and the need to make services more accessible.  She thanked Councillor Jay, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, for her support.

Councillor Willetts, attended and with the consent of the Chair, addressed Cabinet to express his support for the proposals. In particular the move away from dependency of Microsoft products was welcomed.  The improvements to the website were also welcomed.  The current site did not meet accessibility requirements and was difficult to search. The need to address the needs of Councillors as part of the project was also emphasised, particular around the search facility on the Committee pages on the website, the impact of the spam filter and the use of bespoke online forms. 

Councillor Jay, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, responded and explained that she was aware of these issues and they would be included in the review. Councillors were customers too and their experience was important. In particular the proposals would enable the Customer Service team to provide a better service to residents and the emphasis on self-serve would enable them to concentrate on those residents particularly in need of help and support. 

RESOLVED that:- 

(a) The approach to the Digital Customer Programme which leverages the partnership work in North Essex, and specifically across Epping Forest and Colchester City Councils be agreed. 

(b) To delegate authority for the Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation to approve award of contracts in line with the approach and parameters detailed in this report.
 
REASONS 

In the context of North Essex councils’ partnership work, and the intention of sharing a digital team as a minimum across Colchester City and Epping Forest District, it follows that many of the benefits anticipated from working together are enabled by a partnership approach to core technologies, the resources to support those technologies and the change projects to establish them.

Both councils were currently working with online platforms that were not compliant with government accessibility standards, did not provide the level of customer experience and agility needed, and were not sustainable.

The current Epping Forest website was built on a legacy platform which was supported on a best endeavours basis by the supplier and as a result, change was essential.

The current Colchester City website was built on Microsoft Dynamics and Microsoft Power Pages; these tools, whilst subject to continued development by Microsoft, were not specialist web content management systems (CMS) and were subject to changing licensing models which presented some financial risk.

Epping Forest’s customer platform and web forms technologies have been in use for many years, were subject to yearly renewals, and due to limitations relating to in-house capability and capacity have recently necessitated significant spend on specialist resource to develop required workflows to support council priorities.

Colchester City’s online transactions were delivered using Microsoft Power Platform and PowerApps which whilst have delivered an impressive set of capabilities, were increasingly difficult to support and are subject to changing licensing models which present financial risk.

As a result, there was a need to review the market offer for our councils and ensure future platforms offer the best possible customer experience, enable efficiencies in both councils, unification of the support and development teams, as well as an improved ability to be agile to the future needs of the council’s services and communities.
 
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 

Doing nothing was not a viable option.  The current solutions were not compliant with government accessibility standards and due to the risks stated, were not sustainable.  In addition, maintaining the status quo would not leverage the economies of scale and improved outcomes sought by the council’s partnership work.

Progressing each programme of work at each council in isolation would be more costly, more time consuming, and would risk resulting in different outcomes, and therefore also present a barrier to the benefits of working together.

The Head of Governance submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with draft minute 438 of the Governance and Audit Committee meeting of 20 July 2024.

Councillor Jay, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, introduced the report.  The report of the public inquiry into on Grenfell tragedy, which had been published today, highlighted the importance of risk management. The report had been considered by the Governance and Audit Committee who were content with the continuation of the current strategy but had recommended that project risks be included in the Strategy and this information would be provided to the meeting of the Governance and Audit Committee in February.

Councillor Willetts attended and with the consent of the Chair, addressed Cabinet, to agree with the Portfolio Holder’s comments about the importance of effective risk management being demonstrated by the report of the Grenfell Inquiry. The report had highlighted a number of failures by the local authority and it was hoped that a further review of risk would be undertaken to ensure all risks had been identified. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, stressed that the Council’s Senior Leadership Team demonstrated an increased awareness and understanding of risk and constantly assessed events outside of Colchester and the potential risks they posed.  Pam Donnelly, Chie Executive, emphasised that risk management was of the highest importance and she met regularly with the other statutory officers, the Section 15 Officer and the Monitoring Officer, solely to consider issues of risk, and these were reported informally to Cabinet on a regular basis.


RESOLVED that:- 

(a) The Council’s progress and performance in managing risk during the period from April 2023 to March 2024 be noted.

(b) The current strategic risk register be approved

(c) The proposed Risk Management Strategy for 2024/25 be approved and 

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Risk Management Strategy for 2024/25 be included in the Council’s Policy Framework.
 
REASONS 

Cabinet has overall ownership of the risk management process and is responsible for endorsing its strategic direction. Therefore, the risk management strategy states that Cabinet should receive an annual report on progress and should formally agree to any amendments to the strategy itself.

During the year progress reports are presented to the Governance and Audit Committee, detailing work undertaken and current issues. This report was presented to the Governance and Audit Committee on 27 July 2024, where they approved its referral to this meeting.

As part of the Policy Framework, any changes and reviews of the strategy need to be approved by Cabinet and ratified by Full Council.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 

No alternative options were presented to Cabinet.

The Chief Operating Officer submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with draft minute 474 of the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 9 July 2024.

Councillor Jay, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, introduced the report.  She was confident that for those KPIS where the target had not been met there was a way forward to address these and improve performance. For example Bereavement Services income was now back to pre -pandemic levels.  They had a new website and better marketing to help drive income.  In terms of reletting Council houses, the contractor had been changed which had already had a positive impact.  
 
RESOLVED that:- 

(a) Performance against Key Performance Indicators be noted and it be noted that where Key Performance Indicators have not been met, appropriate corrective action has been taken. 

(b) To note performance against the Strategic Plan Delivery Plan and it be noted that where goals or associated actions have not been completed or show a RAG status of Red or Amber, that appropriate corrective action has been taken. 

REASONS 

To review Year End performance for 2023 – 2024 and ensure robust performance management of key Council services.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 

No alternative options were presented to Cabinet.

The Chief Operating Officer submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor King. Leader of the Councill and Portfolio Holder for Strategy introduced the report and emphasised that partnership working and shared services were not new and Colchester had a history of delivery of delivering services in partnership successfully, such as through the shared Museums Service and the North Essex Parking Partnership. The report set out the way forward and some of the complexities of the issues. The financial savings that would result would be identified but the proposals would deliver increased capacity across the councils and increased resilience. 

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, fully supported the approach set out in the report and emphasised that the Council was entering into this with good awareness of both the benefits and the risks and would keep its focus on ensuring Colchester benefitted from the arrangements. 

Pam Donnelly, Chief Executive, explained that a similar report would also be considered by Epping Forest and Braintree Councils’. A new Program Manager had been appointed to focus on the delivery of shared service and thanks were expressed to Mel Kemp Salt, Shared Director of ICT and Transformation, for her work bringing the proposals forward. 
 
RESOLVED that the work undertaken to date and the proposed approach to the Colchester City, Braintree and Epping Forest District Council’s Shared Service Programme-be noted.
 
REASONS 

To ensure resilient and efficient corporate services.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 

No alternative options were presented to the Cabinet.

The Head of Neighbourhood Services submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.
 
Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure, introduced the report.  There had been wide consultation on the new Waste Strategy for Essex and all thirteen authorities across Essex had been involved in its creation. It was based on the requirements introduced by the new Environment Act. It set out what waste would be collected from the doorstep. Colchester currently met all legal requirements, but the Environment Act would require new materials to be collected, such as plastic film, and the Strategy set out when this would take place. It also set out that Essex would move away from the use of landfill for disposal by 2030.  The Strategy would be consistent with the work on the City Council’s review of waste collection which would come to Cabinet in due course.

RESOLVED that:- 

(a) The Waste Strategy for Essex 2024-2054 (Appendix 1 to the Head of Neighbourhood Services report) be adopted.

(b) It be noted that other councils in the Essex Waste Partnership (EWP) would be taking individual decisions on the Waste Strategy for Essex 2024-2054 during 2024.
 
REASONS 

The Council has a statutory responsibility with the other councils in Essex to maintain a joint waste strategy for the management of local authority collected waste. 

The updated strategy allows the EWP to drive significant change to reach ambitious targets and ensure alignment with national policy. The strategy has been realigned to ensure respondents’ comments and feedback have been fully considered in policy development and delivery. This strategy, covering the period up to 2054, brings a new focus on how we will deliver an effective, efficient and sustainable service for the future.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 

To retain the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Essex 2007-2032 without any significant update (Not recommended).

This option is not recommended as the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Essex 2007-2032 was no longer aligned with local ambition or national policy. 

A strong policy framework was needed to support future decisions and system design within waste management to ensure opportunities and benefits can be delivered. The current waste strategy was no longer aligned to national waste policy, nor did it reflect the EWP’s targets and ambitions. The previous strategy did not reflect feedback from the public consultation, which identified the need to do more and at pace to reduce waste and maximize reuse and recycling. 

The Head of Neighbourhood Services submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.
 
RESOLVED that authority be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure, in consultation with the Chief Operating Officer to appoint a contractor for the handling and processing of glass recycling after a compliant tender process.
 
REASONS 

The likely annual contract cost will exceed £500,000, meaning that a Cabinet decision was needed to appoint the preferred contractor after the compliant tender process.

The current contract for the transfer, treatment and disposal of glass recycling ended on 30th June 2024. Delegated authority was sought in order that the appointment of a contractor after a valid and successful tender process could be processed as quickly as possible.

The award of the contract would ensure that the Council was fully compliant with its waste management responsibilities and would allow the Council to continue serving the residents and businesses of Colchester, enabling them to recycle as much waste as possible, whilst ensuring a compliant onward processing structure.
 
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 

To not award a contract or to continue with the current arrangements would see the Council operating at odds to the procurement rules and put at risk the financial budgets, resilience, environmental objectives and delivery of the Council’s operations. 

The Head of Neighbourhood Services submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.
 
RESOLVED that the contract for the supply of liquid fuels at the Shrub End Depot for use by the Council’s fleet vehicles for the period 1st October 2024 – 30th September 2025, to include the option to extend the supply contract for a further year (1st October 2025 – 30th September 2026) subject to performance, be awarded to RIX Petroleum, under the ESPO Liquid Fuels Framework (Ref: 301-22). 
 
REASONS 

The current contract for the supply of fuel to the Shrub End Depot for use by the Council’s fleet vehicles was due to expire on 30th September 2024 and therefore a new contractual arrangement needed to be put in place. The supply of fuel was critical to the day-to-day operation of the Council services, in particular frontline services. 

The use of a framework in such a volatile market reduces risk, as the aggregated value of the potential spend means suppliers will offer a competitive pricing structure that would not be available if the Council went to market just for Colchester.

Putting in place a one-year contract with the option to extend for one further year, provided the Council with the flexibility to change the contract should the demands and liquid fuel uses change, to ensure the Council gets value for money.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 

Not having a contract in place would see the Council operating at odds to the financial rules and put at risk the financial budgets, resilience, and delivery of the Council’s operations, therefore it was not an option to source liquid fuel supply without a contract.

The Council could issue an open tender or procure via another framework, (e.g., the Crown Commercial Services framework) to achieve a compliant contract if the ESPO Liquid Fuels Framework agreement was not utilised. However, based on the market's volatility, these options would be more expensive.

Cabinet considered the motion on anti-social behaviour approved at the Council meeting on 17 July 2024, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member. 

Councillor Law attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Cabinet to emphasise the importance of a collaborative approach to issues of anti-social behaviour.  She was grateful for the opportunity to attend Portfolio Holder briefings with Councillor Sommers.  It was important to thank those officers on the front line who dealt with this issue every day.  Police resources were very stretched and was sometimes diverted elsewhere, and it was important that Council officers could work with police at both operational and strategic levels to ensure that there was always a resource available to keep streets safe.

Councillor Scordis attended and wit the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet.  There had been a passionate and robust debate on the motion at Full Council. Anti-social behaviour remined an issue in the city centre. It remined a matter of concern that police resources were taken out of Colchester, and the Council needed to continue to press the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable on this issue.   It was hoped that some issues would now ease as the school term started.  He supported the concept of collaboration, but it was difficult when one side was not co-operating.

Councillor Sommers, Portfolio for Communities, Heritage and Public Protection explained that there had been two weeks of action on anti-social behaviour in the city centre involving 174 separate engagements with individuals.  The Council was looking to introduce hand held devices so fines could be issued on the spot. Together with Councillor King, she was working with the Business Improvement District to discuss issues about the High Street and shopping centres, and also discussing with the library the anti-social behaviour that had taken place there, Crime statistics continued to fall and she stressed the importance of reporting incidents. 

This was reiterated by Councillor Goss, Portfolio for Waste, Neighbourhood Servies and Leisure, who explained how prompt reporting and action by the police had addressed issues in his ward. 


RESOLVED that the motion be approved and adopted.
 
REASONS 

The motion had been supported at Council and Cabinet was committed to continuing to address anti-social behaviour.
 
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 

It was open to the Cabinet not to support the motion.

The Democratic Services Manager submitted a progress sheet a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

RESOLVED that the contents of the Progress Sheet be noted.

REASONS

The progress sheet was a mechanism by which the Cabinet could ensure that public statements and questions were responded to appropriately and promptly. 
 
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

No alternative options were presented to the Cabinet. 

This minute is not for publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government  Act 1972 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of a particular person, including the authority holding the information).

The Cabinet resolved under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements)(Meetings and Access to Information)(England) Regulations 2012 to exclude the public from the meeting for the following item as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.


RESOLVED that the not for publication Appendix 1 to the report by the Shared Director of ICT and Transformation be noted. 

The Cabinet resolved under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements)(Meetings and Access to Information)(England) Regulations 2012 to exclude the public from the meeting for the following item as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.


RESOLVED that the not for publication Appendix A to the report by the Head of Neighbourhood Services be noted.