896
Councillor Alake Akinyemi attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to highlight and celebrate the work, achievements and contribution of people of colour to businesses and organisations in Colchester. The threats of violence and disruption over the summer which were aimed at promoting division would have done some unseen damage to the fabric of the community, the residues of which were still being seen. She respected the contributions of people of colour to health, education, research, business and entertainment and other areas that made Colchester progressive. However she had observed that not much had been done by the Council to highlight Black History Month, which celebrated humanity in its different shapes and shades. Colchester was a fast growing city and the Council should also evolve in its representation. She would like the Portfolio Holder for Communities to provide an assurance that more would be done in future to highlight the positives of Colchester’s diverse communities and celebrate what is good.
Councillor Sommers, Portfolio Holder for Communities, Heritage and Public Protection responded and stressed that the disturbances across the country in the summer had been very disturbing and understood they would have an ongoing impact on diverse communities. The Community Safety Partnership and the Council were working to ensure such events did not occur in Colchester and to mitigate any effects.
In terms of Black History Month, in previous years the Council had largely promoted events put on by the major arts organisation in Colchester, and there had been less to promote this year. However, the Council had provided funding and promotion for an event at the Minories and it had also promoted a Cultural Inauguration event . In addition funding had been provided for a sporting event. It was appreciated that the Council could always do more and she would revisit this and what the Council could do if she were still in the role in the future.
Nick Chilvers attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) about the Waste Strategy. He had watched the consideration of this by the Scrutiny Panel. Questions about the impact on residents had not been answered. Overall the session lacked time, structure and completeness. Clarification was sought on what was meant by a “community led approach” as some areas, such as Old Heath, did not have a resident’s association or community council. How would the Council engage with such communities? It was important not to just rely on social media but for officers to get out into communities and explain to residents face to face. Information about assisted service needed to be readily available and pitched appropriately. Many of those in need of such a service would not be the most able or confident in dealing with official bodies. The implication was that that the onus was on the resident to find solutions to problems. Could further information be provided about the process to apply for assisted collections and how decisions would be made and explained. He did not object to the proposals but they needed to be introduced with sensitivity to residents and to Colchester’s heritage.
Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure, explained that the issues about the Scrutiny Panel were for the Chair of Scrutiny to address. It was very important that the council got the communications on the strategy right. It needed to take account of all communities and households. It had experience of doing this through the changes to the garden waste service. The changes would be rolled out in a controlled manner. Assisted collections were in place now and over 1000 households used the service, it was expected that this would increase when the new proposals were introduced. Details would be included in the communications about the new service, but this was not a hidden service.
Alan Short attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1). Whilst the issues he raised were concerned with Middlewick, they were concerns about how business was handled in terms of transparency and accountability and were therefore relevant to Cabinet. He been attempting to get an explanation of why a letter from Natural England was withheld from Full Council when it approved the Local Plan in July 2022. The letter contained important information including a threat to oppose any planning application for the development of Middlewick. He had been promised a written reply from the responsible officer. He had received an unsatisfactory response from the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability and had raised the issue with the Monitoring Officer. He had also received a response from the Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure which had advised him to be careful with his language.
In addition it was now clear that the MOD had commissioned a report in 2017 which advised them that building houses on the site would mean not meeting their biodiversity requirements. They had then commissioned the Stantec report, which gave a different opinion, but which was now described as “rubbish” by the Portfolio Holder. This first report was also not disclosed to Full Council on the grounds that it was received after the Local Plan Committee had already met. Therefore when the Council made its decision it was missing two important pieces of information.
Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability, responded and explained that she felt the response she provided was helpful and full and gave the context of the decisions taken at the time. She had raised his concerns with the Monitoring Officer who had confirmed that no complaint had been received. She had set out her involvement in decision making at the relevant time. She had been clear in her response that she could not have circulated the letter at the time as she did not know it existed. She had explained the process in which the letter arrived. Her role was to oversee the Local Plan process, which was a very rigid process with set opportunities for residents and consultees to feed in their views. Natural England were a statutory consultee who would be asked to comment on the inclusion of the site in the Local Plan. They had responded but she was advised this was in the form of a standard letter. They had the opportunity to put in an objection and to attend the examination by the Inspector. The Inspector could also compel them to attend if he considered it appropriate. Anybody could also mount a legal challenge to the conclusion of the Inspector. Therefore by the time the letter was received ,the Local Plan had been through this process, with many opportunities to for Natural England to challenge the inclusion of the site. She had not even been a councillor at the time the initial report was received and therefore could not be held responsible for how it was handled. Officers were working hard to collate new ecological evidence and on the the review of the Local Plan underway, which was a considerable task but every time they were asked to deal with these issues, it took them away from that work.
Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure explained that an allegation had been made that he suppressed the letter from Natural England in his role as the relevant Cabinet member at the time. He had never been a Cabinet member for Planning. He had been Chair and Vice Chair of Local Plan Committee.. The only Cabinet positions he had held was as portfolio holder with responsibility for waste. When Mr Short raised this issue on 8 October the Scrutiny Panel had directed that the relevant Portfolio Holder respond to him and had not directed that he or the Monitoring Officer respond. He had sent a fairly curt response which advised he needed to be careful with his language, as he had not suppressed the letter and had referenced it in his speech moving the motion to Full Council. The earlier MOD report was subject of a separate investigation.
Gordon Kerr attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to follow up comments he had made at Full Council on 16 October about the evolution and corruption of the constitution and legislation. For example under the terms of legislation, local authorities were liable to meet the liabilities and duties of residents, but did not do so. He believed that councils did not have the authority to issue demands for the payment of council tax, and corporate officers were not indemnified against prosecution for doing so. His use of the word “grooming” at Council had not had a sexual connotation.
Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, indicated that he accepted his explanation on the use of the word “grooming.” Whilst he would look at the points raised and the legislation quoted, Councils were established to provide services to local residents, and councillors were also local residents who paid council tax. Councillors undertook their role to try and support their local community and ensure residents were provided with a good range of services. There was not a written codified constitution built up from Magna Carta and successive charters and legislation.
Sir Bob Russell attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to express his concern about the delegation of authority from councillors to officers. When residents stood for election they did so to better their communities, but too much power to do so was given away to officers who were not answerable to the electorate. Councillors were the people’s servants and officers were the servants of councillors but this now appeared to be reversed. Recent examples of this included the decision to close the toilets in Lower Castle Park, without consulting ward councillors, the work on the Albert Roundabout where the greenery was being removed and replaced by non-native pants and sand and the closure of the gates to the cemetery. Concerns were also expressed about a recent decision at the Planning Committee where the wishes of the Committee had been overturned by an officer.
Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, responded and explained that officer decisions were taken in accordance with an agreed scheme of delegation. In some areas, such as planning, councillors had the opportunity to call in decisions to ensure they were taken by councillors. He stressed the importance of communication with ward councillors in decision making and he would pick this up. Sometimes it was necessary for officers to take action in emergency situations.
Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure, explained that in respect of the decision to close the toilets in Lower Castle Park, he had been consulted on this decision and had agreed it. It was spart of a programme of budget savings, and the alternative would have been redundancies which would have a direct impact on the delivery of front line services. He had received no correspondence on the issue to any of his official council communication channels. The works to the Albert Roundabout were the last element of the Fixing the Link programme. He had cancelled the remainder of the programme but this element had been designed by Beth Chatto, who was a well respected garden designer. He would check whether ward councillors had been consulted on this.
Ismail Çufoglu attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to thank the Council and Essex Police for their work on several community safety projects and operations. The information on community partnership surveys and community safety campaigns on the Council’s website needed to be brought up to date. Further information was requested on how to become a member of the Community Safety Partnership and on how much of the funding it received would be invested in anti-racism, diversity and inclusion themed projects. It was suggested that a Hate Crime report section should be added to Community Safety page on the Council‘s webpage. Disappointment was expressed about the lack of promotion by the Council of Hate Crime Awareness Week and Black History Month. In respect of the Essex Police Quarter 4 Public Perception Surveys, clarification was sought as to what percentage were hate crime incidents, and how the Council and Essex Police would look to improve the results.
Councillor Sommers, Portfolio Holder for Communities, Heritage and Public Protection, indicated a written response would be sent to the detailed queries. The information on the website would be reviewed. The issues around Black History Month had been covered in her response to an earlier speaker. The statistics showed an decrease in anti social behaviour. The importance of reporting issues was stressed so that statistics reflected the experience of residents and to ensure action was taken.