Meeting Details

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 23 October 2024 be confirmed as a correct record.

Sir Bob Russell attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to present a petition to the Cabinet against the closure of the public toilets in the Lower Castle Park.  He had raised this issue at the previous meeting and expressed concern that this was an example of a decision being taken by officers.  The administration did not have a mandate from the electorate of Colchester. He had not been involved in the preparation of the petition but had been asked to present it to Cabinet as the organisers claimed they had not been able to engage with the Portfolio Holder. The petition contained 216 signatures although thirty-one of the names were not local.   Some of the issues raised by signatories to the petition included concern about funding used for other issues such as unnecessary works to a roundabout, and the distance to other public toilets. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that the Liberal Democrat group, with the support of other groups, had been able to form an administration and therefore did have a mandate.  It was important that one of the groups was prepared to take on the responsibility of forming the administration.

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure, explained that his contact details were widely published and he was easily contactable. He would take the petition and consider the contents and if in future there were other ways of moving budgets around and reopening the toilets he would consider it, but at present there was no budget to open them. There were other toilets in the area, including at Leisure World.

David Scatcherd attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to express concern about the cost of electricity, resulting from the push for renewables and the carbon tax. As there were no viable long term storage for renewable energy, gas power stations were needed as back up.  It would be impossible to reach net zero if gas were continued to be used. The need for net zero was queried as this was the coldest period for 10,000 years.  The climate was always changing and warming was not unprecedented. The climate emergency seemed to be a big money generator for businesses.  How much more taxpayer money did the Council intend to spend to reach impossible net zero goals, which were unlikely to make any difference to global temperatures, especially given the pressures many families faced.  At a local level, common sense needed to be applied.

Steven Chambers attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) and welcomed the review of the Climate Emergency declaration.  The government estimated in 2012 that to reach net zero in the UK in the next 25 years would cost £1.25 trillion. A more realistic figure was now £4 trillion. These were large sums on a theory with little evidence to support it. Net zero also had significant environmental costs, such as rare earth mineral mining and the creation of toxic solar panel and turbine blade waste.  Net zero would make an insignificant difference to temperature.  Had the Council undertaken a cost benefit analysis of its net zero initiatives? Climate should be judged on a minimum of 30 years,  though usually over much longer timescales, and every extreme weather event should not be seen as evidence of climate change. The claim in the recent Scrutiny Panel meeting that reducing every bit of carbon dioxide helped was incorrect. It was important to look at matters rationally and from a scientific based outlook rather than emotion driven beliefs.  The race to net zero would bankrupt everyone for no good reason.  If the Council believed that climate change was an imminent threat, then mitigation may be a more appropriate response. However, its actions demonstrated that there was no emergency and the declaration of the emergency should be overturned. 

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability, was invited to respond and explained that the actions taken by the Council to address the climate emergency were set in a framework of practical and financial restrictions and the need to continue to deliver a range of services. During the pandemic, for example, actions to address the climate emergency had probably needed to take a secondary position in the Council’s priorities. The actions taken to address the climate emergency were set out in the report in the agenda and had been examined at the Scrutiny Panel,  but included measures to encourage Active Travel, which also had health benefits.  This had been funded through external grants.  It was also being addressed through a review of the council’s assets which aimed at making the council’s buildings compliant with net zero goals. This also brought benefits in terms of reducing expenditure and managing costs.  In view of the other benefits these initiatives brought, they should be supported irrespective of support for the climate emergency.  Two significant factors going forward were forthcoming legislation on heat zones, which would have a significant bearing on how people received their energy, and the Council’s review of its buildings.  Until that had been completed, it would not be sensible to change the approach to the climate emergency. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, highlighted that the report included in the Supplementary Agenda contained a cost benefit analysis of the initiatives undertaken to address the climate emergency. 

Councillor T. Young attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to request that the Council make a public statement of  what it was doing to help Colchester Foodbank in its search for new premises.  An update was sought on the progress of repairs to Middle Mill weir.  There was frustration with the length of time it was taking to resolve this issue, given the impact it had on local residents.  Clarification was also sought on the timescales for the reopening of the Moot Hall. It was disappointing that recent mayors had not had the opportunity to hold events such as Mayor Making or the Oyster Feast in the Moot Hall.  The Council was also losing income because of its closure. 

Councillor Sommers, Portfolio Holder for Communities, Heritage and Public Protection, responded in respect of Colchester Foodbank. The Council had been in regular contact with Colchester Foodbank since March.  It had provided advice in respect of new premises, plus technical advice on issues such as communications and business rates. It was understood that there was interest in a site in Stanway.  The Foodbank were considering a further media campaign and she would consider whether the Council should issue a statement alongside it. The administration appreciated the importance of the Foodbank.

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure, stressed the multi-agency approach to the issues at Middle Mill weir.  The Environment Agency did not feel the weir needed to be replaced, but that was a decision for the Council. However, the indicative costs for a rebuild to modern standards were approximately £1 million. The Council was working with Essex County council to appoint a contractor to remove the obstruction from the river.  There was a long lead in period to this work due to Environment Agency requirements and it was unlikely that a contractor would be on site before the end of February. Essex County Council would then look at the timescales for the repair of the bridge.  It needed to be brought up to modern standards and could not just be reopened. The cricket club bridge, which was owned by the Council, was not in a fit state for public use and would also require significant work to bring it up to modern standards.  

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, responded in respect of the Moot Hall. The relevant surveys had been undertaken and some preliminary work undertaken.  It was hoped that the cost of the work would be under budget and it was hoped that it would be open again for civic events in the next municipal year.  An update would be sent to all councillors. 

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

Councillor Sunnucks attended and with the consent of the Chair, addressed Cabinet to request that the opposition be given sufficient information and officer resource, as it had received last year, to enable it to look closely at the budget and bring forward amendments. An opportunity should be provided for the opposition to hold a briefing for all members, chaired by the leader of the opposition, to ensure their amendments were properly understood. Consideration needed to be given to the figures in the report and as to whether the Fit for the Future programme would work.  Attention was drawn to the Structural Deficit in the updated Medium Term Financial Forecast in Appendix E of the report, which showed that the Council needed to save an additional £6.5 million per annum, in addition to the savings identified in the Fit for the Future Programme. 

Chris Hartgrove, Deputy Section 151 Officer, was invited to comment and explained that whilst the figures in the Structural Deficit in the MTFF were cumulative, in practice, the Council was legally required to set a balanced budget each year and therefore this was an unrealistic scenario as the deficit would be addressed each year. The Council also had the flexibility of using reserves in the short term as one off to achieve base budget savings.  Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, echoed this point and stressed that the administration was well aware of the scale of the financial challenge it faced and the need to reduce costs and raise income.  The Fit for the Future Programme had made start on addressing these challenges.

Councillor Sunnucks queried whether the Fit for the Future Programme would deliver the requisite savings.  The administration was effectively salami slicing services which would have an impact on front line services, whilst bureaucracy and quangos would thrive. Staff numbers over the past five years had risen.  The opposition wanted to see fewer but better paid staff and a more focused organisation.  Fit for the Future could destroy the Council’s reputation without solving its financial problems and the Council needed to identify where it could do less. 

Councillor King indicated he would consider the requests for officer time and resource and for an opposition briefing. However, the Finance Team was very stretched so a balance needed to be struck and the priority was to serve the administration.

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, responded and introduced the report. It was accepted that Fit for the Future would need to go deeper and that the Council needed to do less. The administration appreciated the need to reduce expenditure and address deficits.  Councillors needed to understand that there would be an impact on services and opportunities needed to be taken to work with residents and partner organisations such as parish councils to find ways of delivering services in partnership. This was a draft budget and would be finalised once the settlement from central government was known in late December. Input from members across the Council would be welcomed, especially suggestions for efficiencies and savings.

The draft capital programme was also included within the report, This was valued at £39 million over five years but included funds towards the Town Deal and Levelling Up projects for which the Council effectively acted as banker. The capital programme for the Housing Revenue Account was under review and in the interim, the administration had reduced the projected forecast of borrowing and spending by £22 million over five years.  The MTFF was also set out and this now showed a deficit for 2026/27 due to rising costs. 

The draft budget showed that the administration was working towards a balanced budget that would support services.

Councillor Smith, Portfolio Holder for Housing, addressed issues around the Housing Revenue Account  (HRA) and highlighted the impact that the Conservative budget amendments in 2023/24 would have had on funding for new affordable housing in Colchester. Difficult decisions had to be taken on the HRA. Innovative approaches had been taken, such as the Beyond the Box project which had led to 70 families being moved out of bed and breakfast accommodation to more appropriate accommodation with better support. Affordable rather social rents were now being charged for new properties.  The government’s failure to increase the Local Housing Allowance was causing real issues for tenants in Colchester, which the Council was having to address. Under the proposals, a net capital contribution was also being made to reserves, which would help with projects such as the redevelopment of Elfreda House which would save the Council money in the long term.

Councillor King summarised that the report demonstrated that the administration was part of the way down a difficult path with considerable challenges. However, unlike some local authorities, the Council was not at risk of bankruptcy and had a plan to address its financial challenges.

RESOLVED that Cabinet had considered and noted the early revenue and capital budget proposals for 2025/26 (including the implications in the updated Medium-Term Financial Forecast) as presented in Appendices A to E of the Section 151 Officer’s report and would continue to provide the appropriate strategic direction to senior officers required to produce final (draft) budget proposals for further Cabinet consideration at its meeting on 29th January 2025.      

REASONS

To enable the Cabinet to continue developing and refining final budget proposals for 2025/26 for the consideration of full Council in February 2025 in accordance with due constitutional process.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The proposals in the Section 151 Officer’s report – subject to further consultation and scrutiny – represent Cabinet’s emerging recommended position on the 2025/26 General Fund and Housing Revenue Account budgets (both Revenue and Capital).

The Head of Operational Finance submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member. 

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, introduced the report. The Local Council Tax Support Scheme was designed to help those with lower income to pay council tax, and to help ensure all residents were able to contribute.  In the previous municipal year the Council had moved to a simplified banded scheme, which provided more consistency in terms of payments for residents.  Residents who had been particularly affected by the new scheme had been supported through a system of transitional payments.  It was proposed to continue with the banded system but to reduce the level of transitional payments, now that the scheme was well established. 

Cabinet expressed its thanks to Adam Wood, Revenue and Benefits Manager, and his team for their work on the scheme and for the support they provided to residents.

RESOLVED that:-

(a) It be noted that the Local Council Tax Support Scheme remains unchanged for 2025/26. 

(b) Transitional protection payments for 2025/26 continue at 50% (as set out at paragraph 9.0 of the Head of Operational Finance’s report). 

RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL that the Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2025/26 be approved and adopted. 

REASONS

The scheme was changed significantly for 2024/25. To give residents stability and more assurance with their payments for 2025/26, we recommend the scheme is not changed. 

Transitional Protection (50%) will ensure those households who were impacted most negatively by the change in scheme are still supported but balanced with the financial requirements of the Council.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Minor adjustments could be made to the current scheme; however, this is not recommended.

Transitional Protection payments could continue at 100% or end entirely.

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

Philip Sullivan, Chief Executive, Colchester Borough Homes, was invited to address Cabinet and highlighted several of the impacts from the budget on housing in Colchester.  This included 100% retention of right to buy receipts being made permanent and Right to Buy discounts returning to pre-2012 levels.  These were welcome developments. The government had also indicated it would consult on 5 year rent settlement of CPI plus 1% for social landlords, which would ease the pressure on the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).  However it would not fully address all the pressures that were contributing to the housing crisis, such as retrofit requirements. There remained significant barriers to building new social homes. A consultation on wider changes to right to buy had been launched.  In terms of homelessness and temporary accommodation, as the budget did not increase the Local Housing Allowance or updated housing benefit subsidy rules, there would remain a significant financial pressure from temporary accommodation for Colchester.  The Council would continue to lobby on this issue. There were also significant implications arising the consultation on the rent settlement and a response would be agreed with the Portfolio Holder, and lobbying would continue. 

In terms of the lessons from the Grenfell Inquiry, the Council was in a strong position in respect of housing governance.  The Parliamentary Accounts Committee had announced a new inquiry into homelessness. This was a real issue in Colchester as at the end of October there were 363 children and 327 adults in temporary accommodation, including 66 children and 182 adults in bed and breakfast accommodation .

Councillor Smith, Portfolio Holder for Housing, explained that whilst the changes to right to buy were generally welcome, this had led to an increase in applications.  There had been 22 applications since the budget announcement, which would have a significant impact on the social housing stock. The freezing of the Local Housing Allowance meant that landlords were increasing reluctant to take on tenants on benefits , which increased the demand for social housing for rent. The Council was working towards providing this. Whilst the figures were worrying in financial terms, they were worse in human terms. Some bed and breakfast accommodation was in a poor condition, and every family in some of the worst accommodation had been offered alternative accommodation through the Beyond the Box project.  The Council was using innovative solutions to tackle issues arising through the housing crisis, and there was interest from other local authorities nationally in what Colchester did. The provision of housing and the needs of the homeless would also need to be addressed as part of the Local Plan review. 

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, thanked Councillor Smith and Philip Sullivan for their work and stressed the need to communicate to residents how the Council supported those in need. 

RESOLVED that the contents of the report be noted.

REASONS

The report provided an updated on topical housing issues and did not require any formal action. 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

No alternative options were proposed.

The Client for Affordable Housebuilding submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor Sunnucks attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Cabinet.  He expressed concern that the proposed budget for the design element of the scheme was too high and thought it could be delivered effectively for a smaller sum.  Clarification was also sought on what checks would be made to ensure the viability of the scheme before construction began and how the final decision to proceed would be made. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, emphasised that the project needs to be seen on the context of the need for affordable housing.

Councillor Smith, Portfolio Holder for Housing, explained that the project involved commissioning the same firm to undertake the design and build of the scheme, for a fixed price.  This should make the project more straightforward and reduce the possibility of budget and time overruns by eliminating misunderstanding between the design and build elements.  After the design phase, the viability of the scheme would be thoroughly assessed against the market circumstances at the time and if there were doubts about the viability of the scheme, it would not proceed.  The aim was to develop a good quality scheme that would include requirements such as facilities for residents with disabilities, and there was the possibility of linking the development to other developments in the area to create a larger scheme.  The final decisions on the scheme would be taken by the Portfolio Holder, and would be subject to call-in.

RESOLVED that:-

(a) Authority be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Housing, to award the contracts for the Design, Survey and Build of new affordable homes at 72-86 Military Road.

(b) Authority be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Housing to conclude any subsequent related details related to the legal, financial or other matters of these contracts including handover of the completed properties to the Council.

(c) Colchester Borough Homes be instructed to provide continued Project Management services for the delivery of the site, along with the relevant management fees.

REASONS

The Council has committed to deliver new affordable homes. These contracts will enable delivery towards that commitment and will progress within budgets and other agreements previously made to deliver new homes. 

The first contract, for the Design phase, will be in the tender process at the time of the November Cabinet meeting and will be due to be awarded in March 2025. Delegated authority to award the contract is sought to allow the works to commence in a timely manner, in line with milestones and project delivery objectives and aligning with the usual seasonal weather. 

The design and specification of the site will be required to meet viability hurdles, required planning regulations and planning approval to proceed. The site will under-go, due diligence surveys and a detailed technical design, before seeking authorisation to award the second contract to construct the development. The site will deliver much needed affordable homes to an agreed budget that is sustainable within the Housing Revenue Account. 

In relieving the pressure on the housing register the new homes will also be supporting efforts to move households out of temporary accommodation into permanent housing.  This will reduce temporary accommodation costs being incurred by the Council.  

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Not to award any contracts to build new affordable homes on this site; but this would cease the project and be inconsistent with the strategic priorities of the Council.

Not to delegate the powers requested; but this would require contracts to be individually reported to Cabinet, increasing the time and resourcing, for a procurement process that is already heavily scrutinised and regulated. This would delay the awarding of contracts 
and in turn delays the delivery of affordable homes.

The Head of Neighbourhood Services submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with draft minute 489 from the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 12 November 2024.

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Waste, introduced the report.  The proposals had been considered by the Scrutiny Panel, who had been supportive, and were in line with the Council’s recently approved Recycling and Waste Strategy.  

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked the Scrutiny Panel  for its work in scrutinising the proposals and its supportive recommendation.

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The proposed five-year vehicle replacement plan be approved and adopted.

(b) Authority be delegated to the Head of Neighbourhood Services in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure to approve any minor amendments or changes to the schedule for vehicle replacement up until 2029/30.

(c) Authority be delegated to the Head of Neighbourhood Services in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure to conduct the procurement exercise, award and enter into the contracts with successful bidder(s) for the replacement schedule up until and including 2029/30.

RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL the approval of the additions to the Capital Programme, including the associated Capital Financing Costs, as part of the 2025/26 Budget Setting process.

REASONS

The recommendation to approve the 5-year vehicle procurement plan, with delegated authority to make minor amendments to the schedule and conduct the procurement exercise and award contracts as outlined in the report ensures financial efficiency by reducing costs associated with ad-hoc hires and enhance service reliability and safety by maintaining a well-managed fleet, which was crucial for delivering essential services such as waste collection and pest control. The plan also supports the Council’s climate commitments by aligning with the Fleet Transition Plan to adopt cleaner technologies, thereby reducing the carbon footprint, and improving air quality. It also mitigates corporate risks by ensuring compliance with legal standards and regulations, preventing unexpected vehicle failures and service disruptions. With delegated authority council officers will have the flexibility to alter vehicle specifications at the time of procurement to keep in line with any government or local council policy changes. Overall, the plan is a comprehensive strategy that supports the Council’s long-term objectives, financial stability, and commitment to a healthier, safer, and more sustainable community.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Do nothing

Failure to approve the current replacement schedule would lead to the inability of operational services within the Council to operate its fleet safely and in line with Council aspirations and service delivery responsibilities. This would contribute to higher vehicle maintenance costs due to age of fleet, extended vehicle ‘down time’ and the need to hire external replacement vehicles. Further, if vehicles are not replaced in line with service changes, such as the new Recycling and Waste Strategy for Colchester, the objectives (e.g. recycling rates, financial savings) cannot be achieved. All these risk factors can be incorporated as a cost to the Council and reputational risk should the Council not be able to continue to prove services to its residents.

Continuing to procure vehicles in a fragmented manner across service as is

This would fail to meet the requirements of ensuring value for money and adds an additional burden on management across the Council in failing to deliver a coordinated approach to its responsibilities towards environmental and financial responsibilities and targets. It would fail to consider economies of scale and considerations with a council-wide joint procurement, a management/maintenance approach will secure.

Consideration was given to the nomination for the appointment of the Deputy Mayor of the City of Colchester for the 2025-26 municipal year.

Councillor Dundas attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet. It was for the Conservative Group to nominate the Deputy Mayor for the 2025-26 municipal year. The Conservative Group had nominated Councillor Andrew Ellis, who had 19 years service.  He had represented a number of wards and had also served as Portfolio Holder for Planning.  He was a very thoughtful and knowledgeable councillor and was known for working constructively cross party.  He had the necessary qualities to be a successful mayor.  

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, advised that the convention was that the nomination for Deputy Mayor was made by each of the main political groups in turn, and it was the Conservative groups turn to make a nomination. He fully supported the nomination of Councillor Ellis, who was a thoughtful councillor and who would make an excellent mayor.  Councillor King, Councillor Luxford Vaughan and Councillor Goss all expressed their support for the nomination of Councillor Ellis.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that Councillor Ellis be nominated for appointment as the Deputy Mayor of the City of Colchester for the 2025-26 municipal year.

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.