Meeting Details

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 27 November 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 express his concerns about the proposals for local government reorganisation contained in the recent white paper on devolution.  This would see the biggest change to local government in Colchester since 1189 and would mean Colchester would cease to exist in local government terms. The effect would be contrary to the government’s manifesto commitment of transferring power away from Whitehall.  If Colchester were to merge with Braintree and Tendring, it would likely mean that Colchester would be represented by 20 councillors, rather than 60 at present.  It was surprising that this was not on the agenda for the Cabinet meeting or that a Council meeting had not been called to consider the matter.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and explained that this was just the start of the process and more information was needed before it was taken into the decision making processes.  A response was awaited from government to the indication from first tier authorities that they wished to be considered a priority area for devolution.  If this was agreed, initial proposals for local government reorganisation would need to be submitted in March and the position would be clearer at that point.  The loss of Colchester City Council would be a matter of regret but there was a determination to make the best of the possibilities that would arise from reorganisation.  The need to preserve city status and civic traditions was appreciated.

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, explained that he agreed with the concerns expressed and had voted against the proposal at Essex County Council.  It would mean less local democracy and would enable central government to dictate to local government.  In discussion on the future structures, he would campaign for the most localised options.  Residents wanted local representation, rather than to be represented by professional politicians. There was a need to ensure councillors were kept up to date, and a workshop was being planned.  Civic traditions would be protected as much as possible. 

Councillor Law addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to welcome the newly refurbished playpark on Gavin Way.  Facilities such as playparks were important in improving social connections, physical health and wellbeing. Safety was an important factor and concern had been raised that the popular new zip wire did not have a rubberised safety surface under and around it.  Could consideration be given to extending this surfacing to ensure  safety benefits were in place right across the playpark.

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure explained that there were 73 playparks across the city, several of which needed refurbishment and safety improvements.  A work programme setting out the necessary works had been drawn up and would be prioritised. He would consider this request alongside all the other required improvements, and these would be prioritised based on safety, age and funding.  Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, explained that the draft budget included proposals to invest in playparks.

John Akker attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1).  He endorsed the concerns expressed about local government reorganisation.  It was anti-democratic to cancel elections at a time when there were many important issues facing Colchester.  Concern was expressed about the ability of members of the public to be heard at the Local Plan Committee meeting on 17 February.   This would prevent engagement, to the detriment of local communities and the Council.  As a result of government policies and the update of the Local Plan, Colchester now faced a new annual housing target of 1300 homes.  This would have a significant impact, particularly in rural areas, with strong views held.  To move to the next stage without allowing local residents an opportunity to be heard would be a mistake. The normal Have Your Say provisions would be inadequate to secure the necessary engagement.  Communities would only get six days notice of the preferred sites before the meeting. 

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability responded and explained that she was grateful for his contribution and his commitment to his community.  The arrangements for the meeting were a matter for the Local Plan Committee and could not be dictated by Cabinet.  However, the arrangements for Have Your Say! had been amended recently in view of the need to ensure that Committees had sufficient time to consider their business.  The Chair had discretion to increase the number of speakers and the Chair of Local Plan had agreed to increase the number of speakers to ten for this meeting.  There was no limit to the number of councillors who could address the Committee, and if members of the public could not address the Committee they would ask their ward councillor to represent their views. The agenda would be published 10 days before the meeting.  She had explored whether it was possible to delay the meeting but it was not possible in view of the overall timescales.  If the Committee agreed to the proposals, there would be a period of consultation.  Officers were proposing a new structured online consultation which had been successful in driving up engagement in other areas.

The Section 151 Officer submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Panel at its meeting on 28 January 2025. 

Councillor Dundas attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet and endorsed the recommendations from the Scrutiny Panel and the recommendation from Governance and Audit Committee at item 7(ii) of the agenda. This would provide greater clarity on the use of reserves.  It was noted that the report before Cabinet did not include a Treasury Management Statement and clarification was sought as to whether this would be included in the report to Full Council. It was disappointing that the government were not fully reimbursing the costs of the increase in National Insurance contributions, and that the support for this may only last one year. Concern was expressed about the poor performance of assets at Northern Gateway, such as the coffee shop,  and more detail was required as to how the administration would close the budget gap in forthcoming years.

Councillor J. Young attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet and thanked officers for their work on the budget.   When the new Council had been formed, it had chosen to build Leisure World as a legacy project to benefit the community.  With local government reorganisation looming, it was important  that the Council used its remaining budget for the good of Colchester residents and to target its resources where they were most needed. It was noted that £141,000 had been budgeted for play parks, which would not meet the level of demand. Councillors needed to give clear political direction and ensure delivery in the short space of time they had left.

Councillor Sunnucks attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Cabinet and expressed his thanks to officers for their hard work in preparing the budget and for the co-operation the Conservative Group had received. Concern was expressed about the capital programme.  The administration was proposing to approve a £40 million capital budget whilst there were substantial structural deficits. The LGA Peer Review had stressed the need to review the capital programme over two years ago, but this had not been done. Capital schemes were delayed and then rolled forward and the spend reprofiled.  A realistic deliverable plan was required. Concern was expressed that the proposals may be in breach of the CIPFA Prudential Code. If approved, the capital programme for the following year would increase financing costs by £3.5 million and the whole programme would double the amount of debt. The administration needed to take the necessary decisions, spend levelling up and town deal funds on useful projects and move away from speculative property deals. Long term financial problems would not be solved by salami slicing the revenue budget.  They could only be addressed through looking at the capital programme.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and explained that public assurances had been given on the capital programme and the Housing Revenue Account.  Real progress had been made in understanding the realities of delivering and managing the programme.  The programme had the right level of ambition and appropriate levels of contingency. This was a draft budget and it was possible that some minor adjustments may be made before it was submitted to Council to take account of issues raised at Scrutiny Panel or other representations received. 

Councillor Cory, Portfolio for Resources, also responded.  The administration would endeavour to follow the recommendation made by Governance and Audit Committee,  and provide the necessary information in confidential reports, as far it could.  In terms of Northern Gateway Leisure Park, it was accepted that the position on this needed to be clearer in future reports.  A dedicated reserve had been established to support the budget whilst the full commercial uptake of the site was awaited. The need to use the budget to support residents whilst the Council was able to do so was understood and the draft budget provided for that through capital investment.  A review of the capital programme had been undertaken, involving a cross party group of councillors.  Some ambitions had been scaled back and the delivery of some project had been staggered.  However, capital funding had delivered a number of projects that would benefit residents, such as the Amphora office developments, Northern Gateway Sports Park and the Mercury redevelopment.  The administration would continue to collaborate with partners on the Town Deal and Levelling Up projects.  It would continue to review and monitor the programme to ensure its affordability. 

Councillor Cory then introduced the budget proposals and thanked those members who had contributed to its development, including members of the Scrutiny Panel and Governance and Audit Committee.  The recommendation from Scrutiny Panel was welcomed and would be accepted. The position on National Insurance contributions was still to be clarified but a prudent approach to this was included in the draft proposals. The proposals delivered a balanced budget despite the challenges facing local government finance.  It included the Housing Revenue Account which was delivering a surplus. The proposals would support funding towards the administration’s political priorities and provide capital investment from reserves to support asset condition spending, playpark and open space renewal, a joint review of the possible provision of a bus station and community infrastructure support.  There would be a continued focus on the delivery of Fit for the Future savings.  The budget proposals would ensure the Council was fit for purpose as it went forward.

Cabinet members were invited to identify their highlights from the budget proposals.  

Councillor Jay, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, highlighted the capital investment in operational transformation and digital delivery.  This would enhance the service and support customers received, with a new approach to customer support that would include a return to some face to face contact.  This investment and approach would also provide better access and equipment for members.

Councillor Sommers, Portfolio Holder for Communities, Heritage and Public Protection, highlighted the Extended Producer Responsibility scheme and the funding the Council received through this.  The funding that had been received for schemes to support Holy Trinity Church, Jumbo and the Natural History Museum was welcomed.  A sensible approach to fees and charges had been taken, which had allowed some charges for key services, such as dealing with bed bug infestations, to be frozen.

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure, welcomed the investment in Colchester, and in waste collection services in particular,  This would fund the provision of cleaner and greener services and an extension of the services provided to flats to include food waste. There would be investment in play parks. The key issue was the removal of the weir and ensuring that Essex County Council could then repair the footbridge and open access to residents in that area again.

Councillor King highlighted that the budget would address issues that went beyond the administration but were ambitions right across the Council.  The budget would also be used to leverage additional funding from government and partners.  It was robust and an independent third party review had concluded that the administration should be proud of its financial position give the scale of the challenges it faced.

Councillor Cory thanked Andrew Small, Section 151 Officer, and Chris Hartgrove, Deputy Section 151 Officer, for their contribution to this and previous budgets.  Arrangements were in place to appoint a new interim section 151 officer. 

RESOLVED that:- 

(a) The draft revenue and capital budget proposals for 2025/26 as presented in Appendices A to D of the Section 151 Officer’s report be agreed.

(b) The recommendations made by the Scrutiny Panel at its meeting on 28 January 2025 be agreed. 

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL

(a) The budget for 2025/26 (including Revenue and Capital as set out in Appendices A, B and C of the Section 151 Officer’s report).

(b) The draft Fees and Charges proposed for 2025/26 (as set out in Appendix D of the Section 151 Officer’s report).

(c) The updated Medium-Term Financial Forecast (MTFF) 2025/26 to 2029/30 (covering General Fund and HRA as set out in Appendix E of the Section 151 Officer’s report).

(d) The level of Council Tax increase for 2025/26 (as set out in paragraph 2.4 of Appendix A of the Section 151 Officer’s report).

(e) The level of Housing Rent increase for 2025/26 (as set out in paragraph 2.4 of Appendix B of the Section 151 Officer’s report); and

(f) The Management Fee payable to Colchester Borough Homes (CBH) in 2025/26 (as set out in paragraph 2.5 of Appendix B of the Section 151 Officer’s report).

REASONS

To recommend a final draft budget for 2025/26 to the Council in February 2025.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The proposals in this report represent Cabinet’s recommended position on the 2025/26 General Fund and Housing Revenue Account budgets (both Revenue and Capital).

Cabinet considered minute 467 from the Governance and Audit Committee meeting of 26 November 2024, a copy of which had been circulated to each member. 

Councillor Dundas attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet to endorse the recommendations from Governance and Audit, for reasons he had covered in the discussion on the draft budget. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that the recommendation on the capital programme had been met by the work on the budget proposals. The programme would continue to be monitored and updates provided to members. In respect of the second recommendation the need for clarity was accepted and the administration was committed to ensuring any significant changes to the budget would be reported to members. However, there was a need for slight caution to ensure that expert professional advice from officers was always followed. 

RESOLVED that:-

(a) Cabinet had considered which items in the Capital Programme were deliverable within the current financial year. 

(b) Cabinet agreed that insofar as it was permitted by accounting standards, all transactions fall within the orbit of the income and expenditure account, and no transactions would be taken out of usable reserves without providing this information to Councillors, notwithstanding that this would require a confidential section in the income and expenditure account.

REASONS

Cabinet had considered which items were deliverable as part of its budget setting process.

Cabinet was committed to openness and clarity in respect of its budgeting and accounting processes.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

It was open to Cabinet not to agree the recommendation from the Governance and Audit Committee, or to agree it subject to amendment. 

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.  A number of changes to the Council’s Discretionary Rate Relief Policy were necessary to take account of changes announced by the government in its Autumn Budget.  The existing 75% discount on retail, hospitality and leisure business rates was to be replaced with 40% relief from 1 April.  This had caused considerable disquiet in these sectors in Colchester.  In addition private schools would no longer be eligible to receive 80% mandatory charitable relief from 1 April 2025 and Local Newspaper Relief was also ending on 1 April 2025. 

RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL that the proposed Business Rates Discretionary Rate Relief Policy 2025/26 be approved and adopted, to come into effect from 1 April 2025.

REASONS

Central Government is legislating for the removal of mandatory rate relief provision to Private Schools. The recommendation being made is as a response to this change in legislation to ensure that those schools affected do not restrict their loss of relief at a cost to the Local Authority and to ensure the policy remains compliant with its intentions.
 
Central Government is legislating for relief given to the Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Sector to continue for 2025/26 but reducing the relief from 75% to 40%, which requires the policy to be amended to reflect this change.

Central Government is also legislating for ending Local Newspaper Relief for 2025/26 and this required reflecting in the policy.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The alternative option considered is to make no change to the policy and for it to be carried forward into 2025/26 as it is. However, given that the policy, if unchanged, works against Government policy and would increase the cost to the Council, this option is not recommended.

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

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, introduced the report and highlighted in particular the Council’s commitment to ensuring staff and contracted employees were paid the Living Wage.

RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL that the Officer Pay Policy Statement 2025/26 be approved and adopted. 

REASONS

The Localism Act required “authorities to prepare, approve and publish pay policy statements articulating their policies towards a range of issues relating to the pay of its workforce, which must be approved by full Council annually. An authority’s pay policy statement must be approved by a resolution of that authority before it comes into force”. 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The only alternative would be to not recommend the approval of the Pay Policy Statement, but that would be contrary to the requirements of the Localism Act.

The Head of Economic Growth submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor Dundas attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Cabinet to explain the background to the development of the Team Colchester partnership.  It had developed out of the need to ensure Colchester City Council and Essex County Council communicated effectively over their respective plans for regeneration and redevelopment in Colchester, for the benefit of residents. This was a step forward and led to joined up thinking.  Team Colchester had developed the Town Centre Masterplan.  Whilst a stronger focus on the provision of a bus station would be welcomed, there was no prospect of this being delivered without Team Colchester.

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability, endorsed these views.  

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, emphasised the benefits that Team Colchester had brought. This was not just the pooling of assets but also better relationships and the development of institutional habits of working together to benefit residents.

RESOLVED that

(a) The adoption of an agreement between Colchester City Council and Essex County Council in line with the ‘draft notes to inform terms’ attached to the report by the Head of Economic Growth be approved.  
 
(b) Authority be delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive to make final amendments to the agreement in line with the 'draft notes to inform terms’. 

REASONS

Team Colchester is a collaboration between the leaders of Colchester City Council and Essex County Council with cross party representation. It works to direct the resources of both Councils to support and regenerate Colchester’s City Centre. It has developed the adopted City Centre Masterplan and governs the delivery of Colchester’s Levelling Up programme.

Team Colchester commissioned the development of this agreement to deepen collaboration and bring forward much needed regeneration to parts of Colchester city centre.

The Regeneration Agreement Terms are a crucial milestone in the development of the agreement, formally committing both authorities to this collaborative approach, working alongside each other, sharing resources, skills and expertise. 

The Draft Notes to Inform Terms have been written by Essex Legal Services (commissioned by both authorities) with input from PRD Consultants and Legal/Finance leads from both authorities. 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The City Council could decide not to enter a Regeneration Partnership Agreement with Essex County Council and continue with our current less formal working arrangements. However, Team Colchester has concluded that such an agreement better leverages the resources of both partners to the regeneration of Colchester’s City Centre.

The Chief Operating Officer submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with draft minute 496 from the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 10 December 2024.

Councillor Jay, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, introduced the report.  Of the twenty key performance indicators (KPIs), at September 2024 ten were achieved, four were nearing target and four did not meet the target in full. Two others were only measured annually. 

One of the targets that had not been met was in respect of flytipping. This was an Essex wide problem.  There was some evidence to suggest that some of the contributory factors were the summer turnover of accommodation and the introduction of the booking system at the recycling centre.  However there had been a 17% reduction over the last three months so there was evidence that strategies to address it, such as education campaigns and the use of CCTV, were having an impact. It would be important to ensure that the target set for 2025-26 was realistic. The recommendation from the Scrutiny Panel in respect of making tools and enforcement powers to address fly tipping available to Parish Councils was noted.  The Community Health and Wellbeing Manager chaired the Town and Parish Council Forum and would be exploring with them how the Council could support them with fly tipping issues and a report would be provided to her.  She would continue to monitor the situation.

Another target that had not been met was in respect of corporate sickness. Sickness rates were continuing to increase and there was no evidence of an impact from the new occupational health provider yet.  This was an indication of the pressure facing teams across the Council, but particularly the waste and recycling crews.

Whilst the number of household in temporary accommodation continued to increase, the Beyond the Box project had a very real impact on the quality of accommodation being offered.  160 families had been moved into much better temporary accommodation and costs had also reduced significantly.  Councillor Sommers, Portfolio Holder for Communities, Heritage and Public Protection, highlighted supported this and stressed that the quality of accommodation provided was far superior to bed and breakfast, with residents having their own kitchen and laundry facilities.  It was also considerably cheaper than bed and breakfast accommodation.

Pam Donnelly , Chief Executive, was also invited to contribute and highlighted that at a recent event at the University, government ministers had been briefed about the Beyond the Box scheme and wanted to explore if it could be implemented in other areas of the country. 

In terms of the Strategic Plan Delivery Plan, most were on track and this continued to be measured and monitored through an Action Plan.

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure, explained that he would be leading an educational campaign on flytipping, which address in particular issues around the disposal of household waste in public bins.  The performance on the corporate sickness KPI highlighted the need to move to wheeled bins for all wate collections. 

RESOLVED that 

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

(b) The recommendation from the Scrutiny Panel at its meeting on 10 December 2024 be noted and work continue to explore with Parish Councils how the Council could support them in dealing with flytipping issues. 

REASONS

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

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

No alternative options were presented to Cabinet.

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

Councillor Jay, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, introduced the report. In 2020 the Cabinet had approved the procurement of devices that would support flexible  and hybrid working.  These were now coming to the end of life and needed to be replaced to improve performance and security. Procuring in partnership with other authorities would improve the negotiating position and  improve the warranty terms.  The provision of similar devices with Epping Forest District Council  would also simplify future support arrangements. In view of the cost of the contract, it was proposed that authority be delegated to the Portfolio Holder to award the contract.

Councillor Sommers, Portfolio Holder for Communities, Heritage and Public Protection stressed the importance  for officers and councillors of having efficient and effective devices to work from.  

RESOLVED that authority be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, working with the Director of ICT and Transformation, for approval of the award of contract for the supply and management of the digital devices.

REASONS

The Council needs to invest in replacing the ageing devices before they start to fail. Working directly with the Portfolio Holder on contract award allows direct input and oversight through the award process.  Furthermore, this will support proposed timelines for implementation and to be ready for the new financial year.

The Council has an opportunity to negotiate advantageous terms through the inclusion of three local authorities, as well as take advantage of improved warranty terms to reduce further burdens (for example, an increase to 5-year device warranties from 3 years currently to support newly purchased devices). 

Future device support will be simplified by utilising the same devices across CCC (including Amphora and Colchester Borough Homes) and Epping Forest District Council (EFDC), and will facilitate increased support resilience across the Councils.  This could be extended to Braintree (BDC), should they take up utilising the contract in the future.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

There is no nil cost or nil investment option as the existing equipment is unsupported and end of life.  Sweating these assets increases risks around failure, poor performance, negatively impacting on productivity, while increasing maintenance and replacement costs.

Extending the warranty for an additional year (with limited coverage conditions) would cost in the region of £55,000 per year (on the existing devices).  There would also likely be an impact on any negotiated trade-in value on existing devices, as they would be another year old.  Given the ageing nature of the current estate and the risks to productivity, it is more economical to utilise this investment in modern and supported devices.  

Purchasing the devices outright, rather than leasing, works out to be a more cost-effective model for the Council.  With outright purchase capital costs are detailed and locked-in upfront, and the organisation can extend the lifecycle of devices past three years (which is usually the maximum period for a leasing agreement), which in turn provides for greater future flexibility around options for re-procurement and timescales for replacement, as CCC owns the devices.

Replacing existing devices on a ‘like-for-like’ basis would not provide value.  In technological terms 4 years is a long time, and we would effectively be replacing our ageing estate with technology that is at least four years old, running the risk of obsolescence before the end of the devices’ expected lifespan.

Subject to market fluctuations, the expected cost of a standard device is £735.40, which includes a 5-year warranty.  On an expected number of 680 devices over the contract period, this equates to an expected contract value of £500,072.  It is envisaged that two-thirds of the laptops will be required and deployed in the first two years of the contract.

Cabinet considered draft minute 495 from the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 10 December 2024, a copy of which had been circulated to each member.

Councillor Jay, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, responded to the recommendations.  There was limited resources available to local councils for research and the Council was not funded for research of detailed data, so the approach taken to economic data was to access and track trends in official data provided by Office of National Statistics and other government departments.   Other data used was reports from organisations such as think tanks and the information in the Indices of Multiple Deprivation.  More in depth data was sought when there was a need for information to support a particular project. Regular meetings were held with the University of Essex and these had become more formalised since the signing of the Civic University Agreement in 2024. Economic data was assessed at a project and programme level rather than at district level.  There had been recent meetings with the North Essex Economic Board and an agreement to collaborate and share data which would help with the provision of data on a wider base.

In terms of the skills base, there were two skills centres: the Digital Skills Centre at the Wilson Marriage Centre and the Net Zero and Renewal Centre at Colchester Institute, both of which received funding from the Shared Prosperity Fund.  There was also a new digital forum on Queen Street. 

Whilst the Council was struggling to access detailed data it accessed the information that was available and worked with partners where it needed to.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy,  thanked Councillor Jay for the comprehensive update.  The Council’s Economic Strategy was underpinned by information drawn from many sources.  The development of partnerships with organisations such as the University had enabled the Council to draw on several sources of information.

RESOLVED that the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Panel at its meeting on 10 December 2024 and the Council’s approach to sourcing economic and skills data, as outlined by the Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, be noted.

REASONS

The Council’s approach to accessing economic data and skills was to access publicly available information and work with partners where necessary and appropriate. 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

It was open to Cabinet to agree the recommendations from the Scrutiny Panel or agree them subject to amendment.

Cabinet considered draft minute 135 from the Environment and Sustainability Panel meeting of 12 December 2024, a copy of which had been circulated to each member.

Councillor Goacher attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet. There was huge public interest in issues around the inclusion of Middlewick in the Local plan. The minute from the Environment and Sustainability Panel demonstrated that it was a site of ecological value with a wide range of wildlife.  The United Kingdom was facing a nature crisis and could not afford to lose a site of such value.  A public meeting would enable people to share their views about why Middlewick was so important to them, especially if they were unable to speak at the meeting of the Local Plan Committee, and to address issues around the correspondence from Natural England and the Stantec report.  This would provide greater transparency about the process by which Middlewick was included in the Plan.  

Councillor Scordis attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet.  He had attended a site visit to Middlewick  with the Portfolio Holder, the Chair of Local Plan Committee, the Council’s independent ecologist and representatives of Natural England. It was clear from the visit that most of the site could not be developed.  It was accepted that issues of land ownership and management of the site complicated the issue. However, it needed to be accepted that Councillors would not accept a Local Plan which included development on Middlewick.  If the site was removed from the Local Plan then a public meeting would not be necessary.  The Council did not have a good record in maintaining important heritage sites. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and explained that he appreciated the concerns about the evidence that had originally been submitted in respect of the site, which had originally been accepted at face value. The need to build trust on the issue was appreciated but there was a statutory process which the Council had to follow.  The Council’s understanding of the site was now much richer.

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability, explained that the she was aware of the level of public interest in the issue  The Council needed to listen but it also needed to follow due process. It was reiterated that Cabinet did not decide what sites were included in the Local Plan.  This was a matter for Local Plan Committee and ultimately Full Council.  It was premature to hold a public meeting.  The list of sites that would be subject to consultation would be published on 7 February. The Local Plan Committee would then take a view on what sites should be the subject of consultation, considering all the relevant information and representations.  There would then be a six week period of public consultation, where residents could put their views forward. The Council also needed to take an equitable approach to all sites.  The Council had already commissioned an independent ecology report on the site.  This had not been done for any other site.  It would not be equitable to hold a public meeting in respect of one site alone.  A balanced view across the city needed to be taken. There were also practical issues.  Preparations for a public meeting would take officers away from working on the draft Local Plan and it would not be practical to hold a meeting before the Local Plan Committee meeting in February.  Therefore a public meeting on the inclusion of Middlewick in the Local Plan should not be held at this time. 

RESOLVED that a public debate around the inclusion of Middlewick in the Local Plan should not be held at this time.

REASONS

A public meeting around the inclusion of Middlewick in the Local Plan would be inequitable, premature and impractical at this stage.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

It was open to Cabinet to agree to the recommendation from the Environment and Sustainability Panel.

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. 

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 paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

This minute is not for publication as it contains exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.