130.
Rik Andrew attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the
provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1), he had 2 points to make
regarding 20 miles per hour (mph) speed limits and onshore wind generation.
He believed that Colchester and Essex County Council (ECC) had failed to
implement any upgrades to cycling and walking infrastructure, leading to Colchester
still having a low share of cyclists. Research had demonstrated that the greatest
increase in cycle safety had been to reduce the speed of motor vehicles. Making
20mph the default speed limit on all roads, which would be cheaper, quicker and
more effective to encourage cycling and walking, and which would support the
Council’s stated aim of encouraging fewer shorter car trips. The Panel were advised
that there had been a positive response to a 20mph speed limit in Wivenhoe, with
392 people declaring themselves in favour of this, compared to 70 who were against.
The Council was urged to consider making 20mph the default speed limit for the
whole of Colchester, as compliance with this speed limit would be much better if the
limit was imposed over a wide area. He noted that the Climate Action Plan only
contained 9 measures, and in his opinion, there were no significant measures in this
Plan. Mr Andrew noted that the government had just lifted the ban on onshore wind
farms, which were much cheaper to maintain than offshore wind farms. This area of
the country was particularly windy, and he urged the Council we to make use of
several possible onshore sites next to railways or major roads, following a suitability
study undertaken to identify appropriate sites.
Jane Thompson, Transport and Sustainability Joint Lead, attended the meeting and
advised Mr Andrew that the Council had responded in 2021 to ECC’s Transport
Strategy to offer support for this work and providing suggestions for further changes
and initiatives such as liveable neighbourhoods, school streets, designated 20mph
zones and protected walking and cycling routes. She advised the Panel that all
schemes and traffic management measures needed to be supported by suitable
enforcement measures. Officers would continue to work with ECC and City
Councillors to try to make the highway safer for all road users.
Wendy and Kim, local residents, addressed the Panel pursuant to the provisions of
Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1). They wished to highlight 3 facts:
- The first of these was that Colchester City Council was a leader in the region for
action on the climate crisis. It was one of the first in the region to declare a
climate emergency and at the time was considered a top performing Climate
Friendly Council by Friends of the Earth.
- The second was that the Council’s climate emergency plan recognised that
achieving climate goals of becoming carbon neutral would require big changes
and new ways of doing things.
- The third was that the food and drink which was consumed was a huge part of
the environmental picture. According to the United Nations, around a third of all
human-caused greenhouse gas emissions was linked to food. Of this, food that
came from animals had an especially large impact. As the BBC put it: “Even the
most climate-friendly meat options still produced more greenhouse gases than
vegetarian protein sources, like beans or nuts”. According to research by the
University of Oxford, changing what was eaten was one of the biggest ways our
impact on the planet could be reduced.
With these facts in mind, the Panel was asked to seriously consider recommending
that the Council adopt a 100% plant-based internal catering policy in response to the
climate crisis.
It was recognised that the Council probably did not provide much internal catering, but
it was suggested that a policy which mandates plant-based alternatives would send a
really important message to the public. On the Council’s website, it said that one of the
ways that residents of the city could make a difference to reducing the environmental
impact of their lifestyle was to cut down consumption of meat.
It was suggested to the Panel that it was important that the Council lead by example
on this topic. If the Council committed to fully plant-based catering for its own food, this
would send a really powerful message.
The Panel heard that other Councils in the country had already made this step. Earlier
this summer, Calderdale Council in West Yorkshire had adopted a plant-based food
policy for its internal catering. The Council leader had talked about the decision as one
of collective responsibility for the future, and the deputy leader had confirmed that the
Council’s stance wasn’t about “sneaking into houses to steal wafer-thin ham”.
It was suggested that a commitment to plant-based catering would be an important act
of leadership by the Council and the Panel was urged to recommend such a move.
The Chair of the Panel confirmed that he had been a vegetarian for most of his life,
and had become more active and aware of the issues. He advised that the Council did
not provide internal catering any more and considered that the suggested move to a
plant-based offering was part of a wider educational issue, and he would like the
Council as a whole to embrace the veganuary movement. He would like to speak with
Wendy and Kim to discuss their suggestions further, but was uncertain what the
Council could do now.
In discussion, the Panel wondered whether Wendy and Kim would be willing to
include the use of sustainable farming in their suggestion so that meat from
sustainable sources could be used as well? The Panel was, however, advised that it
was considered that concept of sustainable farming was a misconception and that
the majority of soya grown in the world was used to feed animals. The Chair would
write to Wendy and Kim to engage with them further.
Stuart Johnson attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the
provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1) on behalf of Colchester
Cycling Campaign. He congratulated Officers on the commitment they showed to
make active and sustainable travel a safe and convenient choice.
He wished to focus on two of the key reasons people had given for not cycling that
were raised in the Officer’s report which was included in the agenda:
- Cyclists didn’t feel safe cycling in traffic.
- Cyclists voiced their concerns about bikes being stolen.
Evidence from towns and cities across the world meant that it was known how to
address these concerns, the provision of protected cycle lanes to keep cyclists
separated from traffic.
The new protected cycle lane on Head Street was excellent, and ECC should be
congratulated on building this, as should Colchester Council for supporting this. He
had seen at least one member of the Panel regularly using cycle lane to get to the
Town Hall. Unfortunately, this was almost the only part delivered of the east/west
and north/south active travel routes that Essex promised to provide with £4m of
government money. Heartbreakingly, over £600k had been squandered on multiple
designs of the Crouch Street scheme which had delivered nothing to make cycling or
walking safer.
Where protected infrastructure could not be provided, vehicle speeds must be
reduced. This meant making the default speed limit 20mph in built up areas. Just
introducing tiny 20mph zones outside schools was ineffective; children needed to
have 20mph speed limits where they lived, played and attended school. If 20mph
was good enough for the children who lived on the Chesterwell estate or in
Rowhedge why wasn’t it good enough for children who lived in Stanway, Prettygate,
Shrub End and Monkwick?
The Panel was asked to lobby ECC to introduce an area wide 20mph limits as part of
the current review of their speed management strategy as part of achieving their
vision zero ambition of eliminating deaths and serious injuries on the roads of Essex
by 2040. Deaths and serious injuries on the roads of Essex had been recently
increasing rather than going down.
There was also a need for lower speeds and safer conditions on Colchester’s rural
roads as well. This was particularly timely given the recent tragic death of a very well
known local runner and cyclist after a collision with a driver who was subsequently
arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.
The fear of having your bike stolen in Colchester was very real. There were over 400
bike thefts reported in Colchester last year and only 2 of these were solved.
The secure cycle hub was excellent, but people should be able to lock their bikes up
across Colchester and feel confident their bike will be there when they get back.
Leisure World is a terrible cycle crime hotspot and the council should be doing more
to address this. The Panel was asked to liaise with the Crime and Disorder
Committee to question what Essex Police were doing to address the scourge of
cycle crime.
The Transport and Sustainability Joint Lead had already commended on the
introduction of 20mp speed limits and confirmed that Officers would continue working
with ECC. In respect of cycle theft, Officers were working with Essex Police to
develop a bikewise campaign to educate cyclists on how to effectively lock their
bikes, together with promoting the bike registration scheme. Essex Police had
increased the number of cycle safety sessions they offered at Leisure World, and
Officers were working with partners to develop an off-the-shelf bike hanger package
which would link in with the cycle parking in the city centre.
In relation to the issue of cycle theft, Mr Johnson wondered whether the Panel would
consider making a recommendation to the Council’s Crime and Disorder Panel to
consider this issue further. The Panel heard that 25% of those who had a cycle
stolen gave up cycling completely and there was a need for cycle crime to be
reduced. The Panel was also asked to consider recommending to Cabinet that a
20mph speed limit was introduced across all of Colchester and not just in newer
estates.
A Panel member suggested that a 20mph speed limit would be sensible in some
areas but this had to be through the choice of the public and should not be imposed.
He had been instrumental in implementing a 20mph speed limit in old Rowhedge
and it had taken some years to achieve this with the support of local people. It was
sensible that the Council responded to any ECC consultations and lobbied ECC to
consider such speed limits, but it was not within the competencies of the Council to
ask for this to be imposed. The Panel requested that Officers bring a report
containing information about 20mph speed limits to its next meeting, in order that the
issue could be considered fully. The Panel further requested Officers to liaise with
Essex Police and extend an invitation to them to attend the next Panel meeting to
provide an update on the steps being taken to tackle cycle crime.
Councillor Çufoglu attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the
provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1). He and Councillor Goacher
had taken part in a garden birdwatch survey and between them had seen birds from
14 different species over 2 days, and of these species, 1 had red, and 4 had amber
conservation status. Birds were a part of our culture and history and should not be
taken for granted. There was a need to start challenging attitudes towards them and
learning more about diets and habitat struggles. He would therefore like to request
that signage be installed at Castle Park advising the public what food was safe for
birds.
He considered that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) had carried out illegal killing of
birds on Middlewick Ranges, and wished to know whether Officers had been aware
of this planned action in advance.
He requested that the Panel recommend to Full Council that river pollution testing
was carried out regularly, as during the preceding autumn he had carried out testing
in the rivers and had detected the presence of heavy metals up to 1,000 times the
legal limit which posed a serious risk to animals, plants and habitats.
Mel Rundle, Head of Sustainability, attended the meeting and confirmed to
Councillor Çufoglu that no Officers had been aware of the incident that he had
referenced in respect of Middlewick Ranges. Officers in the Planning Team had
noted that a similar submission had been made to Full Council and it was suggested
that the police be left to deal with this. With regard to river testing, the Panel heard
that regular river testing was already being undertaken in a variety of ways.
Colchester Canoe Club was a key leader in this area with Anglian Water and the
Environment Agency, and was helping with other research at the University of
Essex. The Club carried out a variety of work sampling and testing to look at various
aspects of river health as well as helping to clear litter form riversides, paths and the
water itself. Regular testing was carried out on behalf of Anglain Water as part of the
‘get river positive citizen science project’ which had provided community groups with
water surface testing kits along with training and guidance. Silt sampling was also
taking place to count organisms and report findings back to the Environment Agency
once a month. The Club was also working on a project with a PHD student at the
University analysing water samples from along the River Colne to monitor the
transfer of sewage down to the estuary, and it was believed that the Environment
Agency also carried out fish counts to monitor the river population.
Alan Short, attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the
provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1). He was concerned about the
powers of the Panel and its involvement in environment and sustainability decisions
made by the Council, and Cabinet in particular. He did not believe that this Panel
had been consulted on important environmental issues, for example the replacement
of Middle Mill weir. If this weir was not replaced there would be a major
environmental impact. He hoped that the Panel would see the report which was to be
provided by an independent expert in respect of Middlewick Ranges and then have
input into Cabinet and the Planning Authority. He noted that there was a campaign to
designate Middlewick Ranges as a site of special scientific interest (SSSI), and
asked that the Panel support this.
The Head of Sustainability confirmed to the Panel that issues surrounding
Middlewick Ranges were being dealt with by the Council’s Local Plan Committee as
part of the Council’s Local Plan. She understood that an independent report and
ecology survey had been commissioned. In terms of Middle Milll weir, this was a very
complex project and the Council was consulting with a wide variety of organisations
with an interest in ecology. No decision had been made yet as data was still being
gathered. It was considered that the final decision on the weir would be referred to
the Council’s Scrutiny Panel, however, when clear options became available she
was happy to share these with the Panel, together with evidence and feedback
which had been received. By way of response, Mr Short reiterated his view that the
Panel should have been involved in the discussions about the weir and also the brief
for the expert providing the report on Middlewick Ranges. He commented that the
Panel seemed to be a reactive Panel and was not part of decision making.
Martin Pugh attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the
provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1). He asked the Panel to note
that there was now a call on government to designate Middlewick Ranges as an
SSSI, as it was believed that the Ranges were of national, and not just local, value.
He advised the Panel that 59 signing male nightingales had been observed within
Middlewick Ranges and in the wider impact area, which was a huge population.
Middlewick Ranges was one of the top site for nightingales in the United Kingdom
according to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), and it was vital
that these iconic and endangered birds were properly protected and a better location
for development needed to be found through the Local Plan. He asked the Panel to
note that the discredited MOD report in respect of Middlewick Ranges stated that
there were no incidental records of nightingales on the site, which was contrary to
the experience of anyone who had spent time in the area. The Panel was advised
that strong indications had been found that barbastelle bats were breading in Birch
Brook Woodland and were feeding over Middlewick, and that the loss of this habitat
would be devastating. Great crested newts had also been confirmed by E-DNA
analysis in Birch Brook Woodland.
The Chair of the Panel considered that since the Local Plan had been approved 2
years ago, the work that Mr Pugh and others had completed had served to influence
the opinions of Councillors. The Panel noted that Middlewick Ranges had become
an important local issue and considered that a wider debate on the subject may be
helpful. A Panel member stated that several years ago she and her husband had
submitted a petition requesting that a wildlife corridor be implemented, was an
update available in relation to this?
Martin Pugh stated to the Panel that he believed that lots of Councillors had
indicated to him that they would now vote differently in respect of the Local Plan
based on new information which was coming forward. In term of wildlife corridors,
Middlewick Ranges itself was one at the moment, and he invited the Panel to join
him for a walk at the site.
The Head of Sustainability advised the Panel that Natural England had suggested
that the Council commission an invertebrate survey and botanical survey to provide
independent evidence to support master planning at the Ranges, and work had
progressed on this review. Evidence provided would also be relevant to
considerations in respect of the site as part of the review. It had been anticipated that
the survey would commence in summer 2023 and continue into 2024, however,
owing to the review and the confirmation of the budget last year, the surveys weren’t
able to be formally commissioned until earlier this year. The surveys would cover the
period March to October, however, due to the poor weather conditions during the
spring, survey work was unable to be carried out and so the survey would need to
take place in 2025 to ensure the full coverage of the march to October period. Any
periods of poor weather may require more work to be carried out. All of the
information on ecological findings on the site which had been sent to the Council by
third parties over recent months had been shared with the appointed ecologists.
Officers and the Portfolio Holder had met with the Essex Wildlife Trust to discuss this
third party evidence and the process for the Local Plan review. The brief provided to
the ecologist had been agreed with Natural England and would not replace any full
ecological survey which would be required at later stages of the process should any
proposals be pursued by landowners in the future. Any prospective purchasers were
fully aware of the policy requirements and the ecological value of the site, and would
be required to carry out additional full ecological surveys to inform any future
proposals for master planning and a planning application, should it ever get to this
stage. Once information was available to the Council from the independent ecologist
it would be published and disclosed to all relevant parties, but as yet no information
had been made available and survey work continued. All relevant evidence including
that concerning protected species would be considered when any future decisions
on Middlewick were made, and ecologists were willing to meet with relevant parties
to consider findings and matters arising.
Robert Johnstone attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the
provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1). He was a Community
Councillor Mile End. And the Chair of the Mile End Access Committee. He welcomed
the Officer’s report which was contained in the agenda document, but considered
that the vast majority of cycling infrastructure in Colchester was substandard and of
poor design and did not meet guidance from government as stated in the document
Gear Change. He stated that cyclists should be physically separated from
pedestrians and should not share space with pedestrians. He noted that Head Street
had a cycle lane which was then removed – what was the cost for these changes?
The document Gear Change provided a list of 9 key design principles and he did not
believe that any of these were being adhered to in Colchester. He accepted that
Colchester City Council was not the driver behind any of these infrastructure
mistakes but the Council’s Sustainable Travel Team had regular meetings and
dialogue with ECC to ensure that design projects meet the needs of Colchester
residents. Mr Johnstone also considered that encouraging people out of their cars
and onto public transport was made difficult by the paucity of local bus services, and
considered that bus services should be returned to public ownership in Colchester.