Meeting Details

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting on 12 March 2025 be confirmed as a correct record subject to the correction of Barry Gilheaney’s name in minute 929. 

 

Sir Bob Russell attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) about Local Government Reorganisation. He was particularly concerned about the future of the civic role of the Council and the lack of information being provided to Colchester residents.  Whilst Castle ward Councillors had provided information to ward residents there had been nothing official from the Council, despite assurances in the report to Full Council that engagement with residents was a priority.  He had requested a copy of the Grant Thornton report but this had not been provided, despite being tax payer funded.  Confirmation was sought as to whether Councillors had seen the report and whether they were kept up to date with developments. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy responded and explained that the importance of the Council’s civic role was understood and it was looking at how City Status and civic functions could be retained.  A report would be submitted to the Annual Meeting. In terms of the provision of information there had been a number of press releases.  As more formal proposals came forward, there was a formal obligation on councils to demonstrate community engagement. He had made a commitment to keep other members informed and several briefings had been held and he circulated relevant information. It was right that sensitive information, such as the Grant Thornton report, remained confidential, but the overriding principle was to be as open as possible.

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, stressed that reorganisation was being driven by national government and that Essex County Council had asked that Essex be treated as a priority for local government reorganisation. The onus was on them to provide information and justification for the process. Councillor King kept members informed of progress.

Jean Quinn attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to request that Cabinet did not accept the recommendation from the Environment and Sustainability Panel in respect of 20 mph speed limits.  The recommendation was contrary to the evidence in the supporting report. It did not address the key issue as 80% of child injuries from traffic accidents occurred away from school premises. Also it was not a cost-effective proposal. In Wivenhoe it had cost approximately £500,000 to install safe streets outside two schools, whilst it would have cost £66,000 to introduce a default 20 mph scheme throughout all of Wivenhoe.  Given the pressure on Council budgets, why should the Council spend more than it had to, and the Council should proceed with the cheaper and safer option. 

Councillor Luxford Vaughan thanked the speaker for her comments, which would be addressed when the item was considered. 

Barry Gilheaney attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) on behalf of RAMA (Refugee and Migrant Association) to praise the assistance that a number of Council services had provided to Colchester’s refugee communities.  These included the Resettlement and Diverse Ethnic Communities service, which distributed the funding provided by the Home Office to ensure refugees found a safe place to stay.  They provided an excellent service and worked hard to serve their clientele.  Unlike neighbouring authorities, they had spent nearly all the funding available to them to help refugees. The approach of neighbouring authorities was a concern given local government reorganisation proposals. Thanks were also expressed to Colchester Borough Homes for their collaborative work and the Council Tax team who had ensured that Ukrainian refuges were provided with advice to ensure that they did not pay more council tax than was necessary. 

Councillor Sommers, Portfolio Holder for Communities, Heritage and Public Protection, thanked the speaker for his comments and would ensure they were passed on. It was also explained that the issues he had raised with Cabinet at the previous meeting had been discussed in a meeting with MPs who had undertaken taken to raise the issue with ministers.  Councillor Smith, Portfolio Holder for Housing, thanked the speaker for his comments about Homelessness Prevention Officers, who did a great job across the city. He was pleased to hear that the Council had used nearly all the funds available to it to help with the resettlement of refugees, in contrast with other authorities. 

Carrina Cooper attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1). She explained that she had started attending meetings due to her concern at the authoritarian response to the Covid 19 pandemic, and the lack of challenge to this despotic overreach from MPs, the media and local authorities. This lack of challenge to government agendas persisted and no safeguards existed to protect the public from financial, physical or mental health harm caused by political whims. Recent e-mail exchanges on the issue on EMF radiation showed a failure to uphold the principle of objectivity and evidence based decision making. Despite being provided with evidence that showed lower speeds increased pollution and collision risk, the Council continued to push the 20s Plenty campaign, which linked to the agenda of controlling travel. This was being driven by ideology rather than evidence, and evidence that countered that provided to Full Council had not been considered.  The approach of Essex County Council to consider 20 mph limits on case-by-case basis was sensible. The Council was only prepared to accept comments that were not critical and had withheld information over the changes to the Council Tax demand.  It was difficult for councillors to meet the Nolan principles, unless they were an independent member. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded to stress that the claims made about despotic power or the promotion of ideology over evidence were not accepted. Such claims were only able to be made as they were made in a society where free speech was allowed. However, the views expressed and language used were inappropriate to representatives elected by the local community.

Councillor J. Young attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1). She noted that the report on the new contract  for the Planning and Building Control system made no reference to artificial intelligence (AI).  Was a wider use of AI under consideration and if so, what safeguards were in place.  She also emphasised her support for the comments made by Jean Quinn in respect of the recommendation on 20 mph speed limits. 

Councillor Jay, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, explained that a wider use of AI was being considered, but further investigation needed to be undertaken.  Experience showed that AI was not always the best way of managing customer experience. 

 

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

Councillor Smith, Portfolio Holder for Housing, introduced the report and explained that the contract was being let in conjunction with Braintree District Council and Tendring District Council, with the aim of improving the service offered to all three authorities.  The Living Wage would be paid to all employed through the contract. Social value would be an important factor in the award of the contract. 

RESOLVED that authority be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Housing and the Portfolio Holder for Resources for the award of the contract, to enable the Cleaning Contract to commence from 1st August 2025.

REASONS

The decision to delegate powers to the Portfolio Holders for Housing and Resources is to enable a smooth transition between the current and new contracts to ensure continuity of the service delivered in council premises and because TUPE is involved which ensures staff employed by the incumbent contractor are not affected by a break in their employment. 

This contract is also being awarded in conjunction with Braintree District Council and Tendring District Council with the aim of improving the service offered to all authorities and the intention is to appoint one supplier, which will reduce management and overhead costs for all participating authorities.  By seeking delegated authority to award,  this will ensure all 3 legal entities can appoint by the agreed commencement date and having to wait for pre agreed cabinet meetings may prejudice the appointment, resulting in the contractor’s inability to commence on time.

The decision to award the contract will be based on the tender evaluation undertaken which will incorporate specific Technical/ Quality questions (45%), the Price quoted (45%) and the Social Value Measures offered (10%), which the successful contractor will be monitored on.  The Social Value measures may incorporate local employment (over and above the existing cleaning staff), spend in the local economy, local training (via work experience or apprenticeships) as well as environmental considerations.  There are many other measures that the successful contractor may offer under this contract and all will be carefully monitored as part of the ongoing contact management process.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Not to delegate the powers requested; would delay the award due to there being no Cabinet meeting in May 2025.  Waiting until the next cabinet would delay the start of contract, which would have a significant financial and constitutional impact on Braintree and Tendring, whilst waiting for a Cabinet meeting to arise. The time/benefit balance would therefore suggest that delegation to the Portfolio Holders would be more effective and efficient use of Council resources, without introducing further risks.  The Portfolio Holder decisions would remain available for call-in should individual concerns arise.

 

The Interim 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 and highlighted the need to replace the existing Civica system which was outdated and no longer supported the current regulatory requirements. The contract for Civica expired in 2026 so a decision on a replacement system was needed.  The proposed replacement system was IDOX UniForm which was the market leader and used by over 200 local authorities, including Braintree District Council. The Heads of Planning and Building Control were in support of the introduction of the new system. It would improve the customer experience and satisfy the Council’s business requirements.  It would also allow some flexibility post local government reorganisation. 

Cabinet members indicated their support for the proposals, and in particular the improved customer experience.  Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure, highlighted the difference in practice with Tendring District Council, who did not redact personal details of members of the public who commented on planning applications on the system, and Councillor Jay undertook to investigate this.

Cabinet noted the not for publication information on costs contained in Part B of the agenda.

RESOLVED that authority be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, for approval of the award of contract for the supply of a replacement Planning and Building Control system.  

REASONS

The recommended decision to replace the existing system is based upon several critical factors.  The current system is inefficient, with limited functionality and integration capabilities that hinder operational effectiveness and service delivery.  It is no longer able to support evolving regulatory requirements or digital expectations, leading to frustration for staff and potential delays for the wider community.  Additionally, the existing system’s lack of flexibility and scalability poeses a risk to the ability to deliver on the Council’s strategic objectives.

IDOX UniForm is recognised as the market leader in its field, with over 200 local authorities as customers in the United Kingdom.  This software is also used in neighbouring authorities Tendring and Braintree, and with Local Government Reorganisation imminent, it is prudent to align systems and processes wherever possible.

Braintree District Council are recognised by the supplier as being model users of the software and have considerable expertise in its configuration and maintenance.  Braintree has also agreed to share their existing configuration and work with the Council, resulting in saving project time and money, as well as bringing further alignment.

The IDOX UniForm software is a platform for place-based activity, meaning that other services such as regulatory services, could be brought onboard, potentially saving money whilst further rationalising down the applications estate and thus simplifying administration and overheads.

The Heads of Planning and Building Control are also in full support, having met with Braintree District Council, and having seen the software themselves first-hand.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The alternatives considered were:

Do nothing.  This is not recommended as the existing software will continue to become out-of-date and unusable, with the ability to deliver statutory services becoming ever more difficult.

Upgrade the incumbent system.  This was discounted because the supplier are looking to upgrade their current product with a cloud-based one, meaning that it is likely there will need to be two projects.  Furthermore, there was little confidence that the offerings would provide a single platform.

Implement into NEC Assure.  Following the implementation of Regulatory Services into that product, there have been serious concerns over the stability of the product even with data integrity being called into question before the end of 2024.  The Heads of Planning and Building Control feel strongly about the ability of this software to deliver for their services.

Assess the market for alternatives.   Following market research, other products on the market could not provide a modern platform with the potential to consolidate other applications to provide the Council with the necessary tooling to improve its digital offerings.

 

The Head of Governance 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.  The report proposed updates to the Councillor Development Policy and Councillor Development Strategy, following a review of key member development documentation in advance of the assessment for Member Charter Status. The key change to the Councillor Development Strategy was an updating of priorities to include devolution and local government reorganisation, and several briefings and workshops had already been held. The proposals were supported by the Member Development Group, and thanks were expressed the Member Development Group and the officers who supported it. 

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The updated Councillor Development Policy at Appendix 1 to the report by the Head of Governance be approved.  

(b) The updated Councillor Development Strategy at Appendix 2 to the report by the Head of Governance be approved.

REASONS

The Councillor Development Policy and Councillor Development Strategy were key documents which underpin the delivery of member development at Colchester City Council. It is timely that they are reviewed and updated now so they could form part of the evidence base for the Council’s bid for reaccreditation for Member Charter Status. 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Not to approve the updated Councillor Development Policy and Councillor Development Strategy. 

 

Cabinet considered draft minute 145 from the meeting of the Environment and Sustainability Panel meeting of 20 March, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor Jay, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, explained that the recommendation referred to a pilot scheme testing best practice and that recent changes to the Events Policy had been made to include more information on sustainability and on how the environmental impact of events on Council land could be reduced.  It was important the Council provided residents with a range of different events.

Councillor Willetts attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Cabinet.  He had sat as a substitute on the Environment and Sustainability Panel on 20 March when the recommendation had been made. Whilst he had been pleased that the Council had taken part in the pilot of the Green Events Code of Practice and there were sensible suggestions in the Code of Practice which the Council should adopt into its Events Policy, there were also some worrying implications arsing from it. He valued the freedom of the individual and would resist attempts to impose views of a minority on the majority. Therefore, he was perplexed by the suggestion in the Code of Practice of a mandatory reduction in the provision of meat and dairy based catering at events on Council land. There was a suggestion that the Code of Practice could inform the Events Policy in the future.  The duty of the Council was to provide essential services to residents and it should not get involved in other matters. It should not be telling residents or organisers of events what they should eat or what they should provide at events on Council land and this was not an area the Council should be legislating on.  The recommendation from the Panel was commended to the Cabinet. 

In discussion, Cabinet members expressed the view that these were issues that were best left to the market and should be driven by consumer demand.  This could vary from event to event.  It was suggested that a further issue was not the range of options provided at events on Council land, but the pricing, which could be excessive.  

RESOLVED that the recommendation from the Environment and Sustainability Panel be noted and that the Council should not constrain or dictate dietary choices at events on Council land and would continue to leave this issue to the market and the consumer.   

REASONS

It was the view of Cabinet that these were issues that were best left to the market and consumer demand. 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

To adopt the recommendation from Environment and Sustainability Panel as submitted.

 

Cabinet considered draft minute 144 from the meeting of the Environment and Sustainability Panel meeting of 20 March, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability, explained that she had written to the Portfolio Holder at Essex County Council on the issue of 20 mph on Colchester, following the adoption of the motion at Council.  He had responded that Essex County Council was generally in agreement with the benefits of 20 mph, but there were no current plans to implement 20 mph in any area of Colchester.  Individual communities were welcome to put forward schemes via the Local Highway Panel.  It was her view that until the Council had responsibility for highways issues, this was not an area it could influence.

Councillor Willetts attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet in support of the recommendation from the Environment and Sustainability Panel. Residents had welcomed the adoption of the motion by Council on 20 mph in December 2024 and there was a head of steam building to address the issue. Residents did not really want the full safe streets solution outside schools, but just a 20 mph limit in the immediate environs of the school, together with a willingness to enforce. The Panel had been informed that the request was unlikely to be looked at until local government reorganisation had taken place. Given the demands on any new authority, it was unlikely that the issue would be addressed for five years, which was not good enough. A start needed to be made, and this should be with those schools who wanted it.  The Council had funding in reserves, and it could use its general power of competence to provide funding to Essex County Council to undertake the necessary work. It was important that the Council addressed the issue before it was subsumed under local government reorganisation.  It was unacceptable to do nothing, given the terms of the motion that had been passed by Council.

Councillor Luxford Vaughan explained that there were alternative, short term practical ways of addressing the issue and explained how councillors in Wivenhoe had used locality budgets to purchase vehicle activated signs to help control traffic speed. At  present the Council did not have responsibility or the funding to implement 20 mph as recommended by the Panel.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that Cabinet supported the motion adopted by Full Council and had to accept that this was not a function for the which Council was responsible. Essex County Council had explained that they would not be implementing 20 mph in Colchester, except in the circumstances already outlined, so this was a matter on which further negotiation and discussion with the County Council would be necessary. He proposed that Cabinet should only accept the recommendation (a) from the Panel up to the word “appropriate”.  It should thank the Panel for their support for 20 mph speed limits and further advise the Panel that proposals to Cabinet should relate to its powers of competency and be accompanied by an identified budget and plan.  It should be informed of the position of  Essex County Council as reported to Cabinet and be asked to keep a watching brief on the issue, and to raise any concerns with the Portfolio Holder and Cabinet by the autumn when issues should be clearer on the possibilities through the Local Highway Panel and when there should be a clearer sense of the likely form of local government reorganisation.

Cabinet indicated its support to this proposal.

RESOLVED that:-

(a) That the Council works with Essex County Council (ECC) and others to investigate opportunities to make neighbourhoods safer and healthier by reducing speed limits where appropriate.

(b) The Environment and Sustainability Panel be thanked for its support for 20 mph speed limits.

(c) The Panel be advised that proposals to Cabinet should relate to its powers of competency and be accompanied by an identified budget and plan.  

(d) The Panel be asked to keep a watching brief on the issue, and to raise any concerns with the Portfolio Holder or Cabinet by the autumn, when the possibilities through the Local Highway Panel should be clearer and when there should be a clearer sense of the likely form of local government reorganisation.

REASONS

Cabinet was of the view that as Highways matters lay with Essex County Council it did not have either the responsibility or the budget to support recommendation (b) from the Panel.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

It was open to Cabinet to accept the recommendation from the Panel.

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

RESOLVED that the revised Contract Procedure Rules attached to the report by the Head of Governance be approved and that they be included in the Council’s Constitution.

REASONS

To ensure that the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules are compliant with recent legislative changes.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

No alternative options were presented to Cabinet but it was open to Cabinet not to approve the revised Contract Procedure Rules. 

 

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

The Democratic Services Manager was asked to ensure that there were no outstanding queries from Jean Quinn. 

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.