Meeting Details

Councillor Çufoglu attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1). He advised the Panel that he had attended its meeting in August and had shared his findings from participating in the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)’s ‘Big Bird Watch’ which had showed that Colchester was home to several ‘red’ and ‘amber’ listed species. He had requested that signage be installed at lower Castle Park to advise residents about foods which could safely be fed to birds, could he have an update on what progress had been made in respect of his suggestion?

He had also shared his concerns that the selection of shrubs and trees which had been gifted to residents under the Council’s Trees for Years scheme the previous year had been very disappointing, as these plants had offered little environmental value. He requested that the Panel take a more pro-active approach towards the Trees for Years scheme to make this more meaningful, and he had also requested that a pollinator strategy be developed. The Panel had previously been encouraged to make contributions to Essex County Council (ECC)’s Local Nature Recovery Strategy, as he had been the only Councillor from Colchester who had attended ECCs initial presentation in relation to this. He questioned the Council’s decision to end the ‘No Mow May’ scheme, and expressed disappointment that he had not received a written update or invited to a meeting with senior Councillors as he had been promised by the Chair at the previous meeting of the Panel.

Mel Rundle, Head of Sustainability, attended the meeting and advised Councillor Çufoglu that she had liaised with the Council’s Operations Manager in respect of his request for signage in lower Castle Park. Signage had been present in the past but its use had been discontinued due to frequent vandalisation. Additionally, the signage had been poorly received at the time it had been installed as the BBC had simultaneously released an article suggesting that it was acceptable to feed birds bread. Officers were happy to reconsider the installation of suitable signage in the area once the water levels in the lake had reached an appropriate depth. Officers had drafted an email response to Councillor Çufoglu following the last meeting of the Panel, but an error had meant that this had not been sent to him.

In respect of the Council’s Trees for Years scheme, the Panel was advised that unfortunately due to budget resource issues this scheme would not be delivered in 2025, but would be considered again in the future. Councillor Çufoglu’s comments about the types of trees that were offered would be taken into account at this time.

The Panel heard that Officers from the Council’s Parks and Countryside Team had been consulted in respect of ECCs Local Nature Recovery Strategy, and had been provided the opportunity have an input into this Strategy.

Councillor Çufoglu was advised that the Parks, Countryside & Greening Operations Manager had sent him an email with a link to the Council’s website highlighting information around No Mow May. Unfortunately, the Council had had to stop this initiative as issues had been caused by cutting grass which had grown very long, and it was considered better for wildlife and seed dispersal to have more areas of long grass which were left unmown all season. The issue of the use of glyphosate herbicide was on the agenda for this meeting, and the use of glyphosate had been removed in all the Council’s operations. The Council had not yet decided whether to not to implement a pollinator strategy, but in the event that it did decide to do so, then a draft of this policy would be presented to the Panel for its input in the future.

Councillor Çufoglu welcomed the comprehensive response he had received but requested that when the Council made decisions such as cancelling No Mow May or introducing a pollinator strategy, it consulted with local environment groups.

At the request of the Chair, who had noted that members of the public who were present wished to address the Panel on the subject of Middlewick Ranges, the Democratic Services Officer advised those present that there was a meeting of the Local Plan Committee on 16 December 2024 and registrations for Have Your Say! at this meeting should be submitted by noon on 13 December 2024.

Martin Pugh attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1). He advised the Panel that the United Kingdom (UK) was facing a biodiversity crisis, and was one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, with Essex ranking as one of its most nature-depleted counties. Over 97% of wildflower meadows had been lost since World War II, and in Colchester, the acid grassland of Middlewick Ranges represented over a third of such habitats in the district. Losing this habitat was always damaging, but now it was known that the area was of national ecological importance.

The Panel heard that the government’s legally binding targets aimed to halt species decline by 2030, with abundance increasing by at least 10% by 2042, while restoring 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat. Mr Pugh stated that building on Middlewick directly undermined these goals as its development would destroy vital habitat, increase species extinction risks, and erase opportunities for habitat restoration— breaching both national and local biodiversity commitments.

Local Wildlife Sites (LoWS), like Middlewick, formed essential green networks, holding together fragmented ecosystems. Often as valuable as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSI)s, LoWS were critical refuges for wildlife, and havens for communities, particularly during a mental health crisis. LoWS should never be considered disposable, yet Middlewick was allocated for housing in 2017 without surveys or consultation, with a presumption for development that ignored the “avoid” step of the Mitigation Hierarchy. The destruction of Stanway Sidings LoWS for housing had mirrored this pattern. Presumed development destroyed 6 hectares of woodland before its ecological value, including one of Essex’s largest Great Crested Newt populations, was properly understood. Newts were confined to smaller habitats, with “compensation” limited to a single pond. Middlewick risked becoming a larger-scale tragedy, greenwashing destruction with hollow promises of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG).

In November, the Friends of Middlewick had funded a vital CHEGD+ fungi survey by Emma Williams after planners ignored calls for it. Her findings had been:

- 21 waxcap species exceed the SSSI threshold.

- Nine IUCN Red List species, as globally threatened as snow leopards and pandas.

- These results confirm Middlewick as nationally significant, meeting JNCC SSSI criteria.

Emma Williams had described the site as “screaming acid grassland,” directly contradicting the Stantec report’s misidentification of habitats as “poor semi-improved.”

Experimental plans to artificially recreate acid grassland, such as sulphur amendment, are scientifically flawed and environmentally risky, as highlighted by experts like Professor Gareth Williams. Such strategies rarely succeed and could harm nearby ecosystems, yet were accepted by planners without scrutiny.

Middlewick’s allocation in the Local Plan had been a mistake that breached planning law and undermined biodiversity goals. It must be removed from the Local Plan and reallocated as a nature reserve. How would this Panel ensure Colchester planners adhered to national and local biodiversity obligations, prevent further destruction of LoWS, and act decisively to remove Middlewick from the Local Plan?

The Chair of the Panel confirmed that it had no formal oversight of the Local Plan. A review of the Local Plan was currently ongoing, and Mr Pugh was urged to make his representations to the Local Plan Committee which was meeting shortly.

Mr Pugh considered that the Panel did serve a crucial role in the Council and he would like to think that there would be a role for the Panel in the decision making process. A letter which had been sent to the Council from Natural England was now in the public domain, and it would be good to have confirmation that all Councillors had read this.

A Panel member recalled that he had suggested that due to the importance of issues around Middlewick Ranges and the site itself, a public debate be held to consider these, and he wished to make a formal recommendation to Cabinet that such a debate was considered.

Caroline White attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1). She had revisited the Council’s supplementary planning document on Biodiversity. This document clearly outlined statutory obligations for biodiversity in planning, and yet the inclusion of Middlewick Ranges in the Local Plan highlighted significant failures by the Council’s planning officers to adhere to these principles.

The document stated that development would only be supported with appropriate ecological surveys. Yet Middlewick, a Local Wildlife Site (LoWS) with irreplaceable habitat and recorded species of principal importance, had been included in the Local Plan without ecological surveys. It also stated that proposals resulting in the loss of irreplaceable habitats would not be permitted unless there are "wholly exceptional reasons" and a suitable compensation strategy. However, the Council had presumed that development was deliverable on this site, later supported by the flawed Stantec report. This report was dismissed as "rubbish" by the portfolio holder for planning but remained part of the evidence base.

What actions were being taken to ensure ecological expertise informed planning decisions, so planners could comply with statutory and local guidelines? Planners and the portfolio holder often prefaced responses to residents with “I’m not an ecologist,” yet they independently made decisions on ecology, presenting misinformed advice that had led to Middlewick’s inclusion in the Local Plan.

The requirement for a full grassland fungi survey at Middlewick was raised repeatedly but ignored. Friends of Middlewick (FOM) had to fund a CHEGD+ survey by national fungi expert Emma Williams. Her preliminary findings had showed that Middlewick’s fungi exceed SSSI thresholds, with nine species on the IUCN Global Red Data List, globally threatened species in the same category as snow leopards and giant pandas. Who had advised the planners on the ecological significance of acid grassland or and the potential mycological value of such a habitat?

The species list was expected to grow following microscopy by Emma and eDNA analysis by national expert Professor Gareth Griffith who were both national experts. Professor Griffith had previously conducted a study on translocated waxcaps at the Severalls development site. Although planners had accepted this compensation for the destruction of waxcap habitat, Professor Griffith had referred to this strategy as a ‘translocation experiment” which he concluded was a “limited success, in part due to its complexity.”

The experimental sulphur amendment strategy proposed for Middlewick was further evidence of planners failing to understand the complexity of ecosystems. This approach was focussed on the “Field of Dreams” hypothesis, referred to as myth in research. No mention had been made of the high potential for the strategy to have a detrimental impact on such an environmentally sensitive site. Was the Council’s Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document simply a glossy brochure to greenwash the experimental compensation policies used to justify the destruction of habitats?

What role could the Panel play in ensuring ecological expertise informs planning decisions to comply with legislation and the Council’s biodiversity duty? How would it ensure that the mistakes which had been made at Middlewick were not repeated elsewhere?”

The Chair offered the Panel’s thanks for the care and attention which had been given to the representations which had been made. It was her understanding that fresh biodiversity evidence was being considered as part of the current Local Plan review process. Officers were required to balance a range of roles and responsibilities, and were aware of the concerns which had been raised by residents.

In response, Caroline White reiterated that she believed that there was a lack of ecological expertise as part of the process. Data had been submitted to the Council and assurances had been offered that this would be evaluated, but despite asking repeatedly, the names of the experts who would be evaluating the date had not been provided. She did not believe that the Council’s planers had the necessary knowledge to analysis the data provided. The Chair considered that it may not be possible for Officers to reveal the personal data of individuals.

Dougal Urquhart attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1). He was the Chair of the Colchester Natural History Society (CHNS) and wished to address the Panel on the subject of Middlewick Ranges, and the role of the Panel. The CNHS had worked closely with the Council on biodiversity issues for many years. In fact, going back 152 years, the very first CNHS meeting had been held in this very building with the then mayor Hawkins presiding. The Essex Standard reported the Mayor saying “if there was any way in which he could assist he should be most happy to do so!” It would be appreciated if the Council would be so helpful as it had been then.

At the last Panel meeting, the Middlewick campaign had been heartened by the concerns expressed by Councillor Bentley who had said “it was a very important issue for the city, it was an issue beyond the Local Plan, a proper Colchester debate is needed, Colchester deserves it, and the Cabinet member could be asked to set up a meeting”. It was a pity that the minutes didn’t have this as an action point, as four months had passed without that meeting, which was still needed.

For a number of reasons Middlewick continued to be a national issue, not just amongst national wildlife organisations. It had also attracted the attention of the national media such as Channel 4, The Guardian and The Daily Mail. However, the looming threat of destruction to this nationally significant site for biodiversity within the city, still didn’t warrant any discussion by this Panel, other than during the Have Your Says! Section of the meeting.

The allocation of Middlewick Ranges for development represented a catastrophic failure of planning processes, violating National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidelines, biodiversity laws and procedural standards. The decision to allocate Middlewick for development in 2017 had been made before any ecological surveys were carried out, and ever since then, there had been a presumption of development. The independent ecological survey was not independent but was asked to identify where building could take place and had a very narrow brief of botany and invertebrates. Despite what had been minuted about the sharing of data, Councillor Luxford Vaughan had said at one stage that no sharing should happen, while planners also refused to meet with Essex Wildlife Trust officers. The statement by a senior planner at a recent Local Plan Committee meeting that new wildlife evidence was a distraction to her team, had been shocking to hear. This disregard to the importance of biodiversity was very alarming but in truth it’s been the same attitude the Council had maintained about Middlewick since 2017.

The site was unviable for development under the NPPF, protecting and enhancing biodiversity. Middlewick was simply irreplaceable, and the Council should not only take this site off the Local Plan, but begin planning on ways to protect the biodiversity and save the site for future generations.

The Panel would have heard of the spectacular colourful display of grassland fungi in early November, which was of national importance and further proof of the irreplaceable ancient acid grassland. As someone said following the discovery of these rare fungi; “the one doing the most to save the Wick, is the Wick itself!”

At the request of the Chair, the Democratic Services Officer explained the function of minutes of Council meetings, and the fact that these were not verbatim records of all that had been said during a meeting, and they did not record action points, but rather formal decisions and recommendations which had been made by a Committee or Panel.

RECOMMENDED TO CABINET that: that a public debate around the inclusion of Middlewick in the Local Plan is considered. 

The Panel considered a report which set out and reviewed the progress of the removal of glyphosate-based herbicides from general use in grounds maintenance activities carried out by Colchester City Council, Colchester Borough Homes and Amphora (now CCC Estates.) since April 2020.

Councillor Goacher attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 4(1). He advised the Panel that the Officer’s report had left him aghast, as its sole focus was around costings, and no mention had been made of the health implications of glyphosates. The reason that councils around the country were phasing out the use of glyphosates was because of the negative impact that it had on biodiversity and public health, particularly the health of children where it had been used around children’s playgrounds. In 2023 a report had been provided by 10 leading scientists in the United States of America which had found that people who had been exposed to glyphosates had cancer biomarkers in their urine, and yet there was not a single word about health implications in the Officer’s report. Councillor Goacher appreciated that in the current financial situation costing was important, however, he considered that in any other area, dangers to health would also be considered. It was also concerning that no information had been included in relation to the potential gains to biodiversity which would be associated with allowing wildflowers to grow. Glyphosate was a herbicide which did not distinguish between flowers and weeds, and this had not been taken into account in the report. Councillor Goacher did not accept the arguments which had been advanced in the report concerning the labour intensity of removing weeds, considering that in his experience the weeds which had been photographed in the report would not be labour intensive to remove, although he did accept the point that stinging nettles and other deep-rooted weeds would be more challenging. When considering the issue of the use of glyphosate, it was essential that a balance was stuck between a full range of considerations such as the biodiversity and health gains associated with not using glyphosate, and not solely the cost implications.

A Panel member was familiar with the playground which had been a point of discussion, and had spoken with Neighbourhood Services staff who had been clearing it of weeds. The playground had been shut while the weeds had been dealt with, as thistles and nettles posed a danger to children using it. She did not support the use of chemicals to control weeds, and considered that greater manpower was required to tackle the roots of weeds to ensure that they were effectively removed from an area.

David Carter, Parks and Open Space Improvement Officer, attended the meeting and advised the Panel that the report which was before it was intended to provide an update on the impact of removing glyphosate from the Council’s grounds maintenance operations. The report focussed on how ceasing the use of glyphosate in 2021 had changed the way in which grounds maintenance was delivered, together with some successes which had been achieved such as using internally produced bark mulch in areas which would have been sprayed with herbicide in the past. The Council was responsible for the maintenance of over 80 playgrounds, and there was a need to ensure that weeds were adequately controlled in these areas. The current use of manual labour did have an impact on the grounds maintenance team and its budget.

Mel Rundle, Head of Sustainability, attended the meeting and responded to the comments which Councillor Goacher had made, considering that he had raised a good point in relation to the health impacts of using glyphosate. The report which had been presented to the Panel had aimed to highlight the impact and consequences of removing glyphosate from the Council’s maintenance activities, and the additional resources which were now required to manage weeds. If the Panel was minded to refer the issue on to Cabinet, consideration could be given to amending the report to reflect the points which had been made.

A Panel member voiced concern that the contents of the report had not been made available before the decision had been taken to phase out the use of glyphosates, considering that it now appeared that the Council was unable to afford the alternative weed control measures. Councillors had been told that the Council could afford to look after the parks without using glyphosate, and it now appeared that this was not the case. A further issue which had not been considered was the damage which had been caused to pavements by weeds, which created a problem for Essex County Council (ECC) Highways Department, in addition to the potential trip hazards which were caused by weeds sticking up through pavements. She strongly felt that this should have been considered in 2021 when the decision to remove the use of glyphosates had been taken. It was very concerning that the report appeared to indicate that weeds could not be adequately controlled without increased cost to the Council.

In discussion, the Panel considered that residents expected the Council to fulfil basic functions such as keeping pavements clean and collecting rubbish, and these functions were paid for out of their Council Tax contributions. Had any partnership working been undertaken with ECC or alternative maintenance companies, and if not, should this be considered? It may prove possible to put in place a plan to tackle the issue of weeds in a different way, as although the report before the Panel presented a good option, it did not reflect all the options. The Panel considered that it had been presented with a system which would both replace the use of glyphosate and ensure that areas were kept free of weeds, but that this would require greater investment. It considered that it was the responsibility of Cabinet to decide how resources were spent to support grounds maintenance and a Panel member wished to make it clear to Cabinet that her residents felt it was important that public areas were kept free of weeds, and that this should therefore be a spending priority.

Councillor Çufoglu attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 4(1). The Panel was advised that training a guide dog to assist a visually impaired resident cost in the region of £10,000, and during its lifetime a guide dog would additionally cost its companion approximately £35,000, and the cost of training other therapy dogs was similar and likely to rise significantly due to inflation. The re-introduction of glyphosate represented a significant risk to these essential dogs, and currently residents knew that they didn’t have to worry about the use of glyphosates in Council managed parks and open spaces, and consultation should be carried out with local residents and schools. In 2018, Essex had been identified as key location for insect habitat management and, following this, Essex Wildlife and Buglife had been running successful collaborations to re-introduce Britain’s rarest butterfly, the Heath Fritillery, and Britain’s rarest bumblebee, the Shrill Carder Bee, in Essex. In June 2022 as a representative of Pesticide Free Essex, Councillor Çufoglu had offered to engage with the Council and had sent 6 documents to Officers in the last year including alternatives to herbicides, a weed management plan, the management costs of going pesticide-free and resources for local authorities. Since June 2023 he had highlighted the readiness to help of campaigners and volunteers, but had received no official response to the documents he had submitted, had these documents been considered when this report had been prepared? The report acknowledged that hand weeding was one of only two methods which was very effective, however additional methods such as hot foam had not been considered. Councillor Çufoglu was pleased that following his suggestion, a pollinator strategy was finally being considered, however, he was disappointed that no health and environmental or wellbeing gains had been covered. He had recently attended an event arranged by the Natural History Society in relation to wildlife patterns and populations in Colchester and had been delighted to learn that rare butterflies and pollinators were returning to Colchester. He had been informed by the Panel in June 2022 that here had been no increase in members of the public contacting the Council with concerns relating to the phasing out of glyphosate and considered that this demonstrated that the attitude of the public had therefore been supportive.

The Parks and Open Space Improvement Officer confirmed that he had not had sight of the documents which Councillor Çufoglu had shared, but was happy to review these. In response to the Chair of the Panel, The Parks and Open Space Improvement Officer confirmed that there was scope for the report which had been presented to the Panel to be amended before it was presented to Cabinet. The Chair summarised the concerns which had been raised by the Panel and visiting Councillors, and considered that the Panel wished to suggest that greater consideration be given to biodiversity gains, health impacts and the potential for greater partnership working in the report.

The Panel discussed the options which were available to it, and considered that the report which it had received at the meeting should be amended to reflect the concerns which had been raised, and also to emphasise the importance of weed control to the public for both public safety and the look and feel of an area, while balancing the serious impact that the use of herbicides could have on the environment. Noting the significant time period until the next scheduled meeting of the Panel in March 2025, the amended report should be submitted directly to Cabinet to ensure that it was considered expeditiously.

RESOLVED that: The Panel had reviewed the Officer’s report and requested that an updated report containing additional information on biodiversity issues and health impacts, be submitted to Cabinet.

RECOMMENDED to Cabinet that: the updated report be considered and the use of glyphosate-based herbicides be reviewed in detail, with a particular emphasis on the overarching importance of controlling weeds, biodiversity issues, health impacts and active partnership working with Essex County Council and neighbouring authorities, to seek the best possible solutions for residents.

The Panel considered a report which contained information on the Council's emissions from the 2023/24 financial year.

Ben Plummer, Climate Emergency Project Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Panel with its enquiries. The Panel received a presentation which sought to explain how the Council’s emissions had been calculated and how emissions had varied between the preceding 2 financial years. The Council’s emissions were generated by gas consumption, fuel usage (including electric vehicles), electricity usage (including grid losses), water usage and waste produced from Council buildings. The Council’s emissions baseline had been set during the 2018/2019 financial year, and in the most recent financial year 2023/2024 the reduction in emissions had been just over 13%. Emissions were calculated using a set of emission conversion factors that were produced by government, which were a set of factors which outlined how certain activity contributed to emissions, and which allowed the Council to calculate tonnes of emissions attributable to resource use.

There were a number of factors which could influence the Council’s emissions within different areas, and by way of example the rise in emissions associated with the Council’s use of electricity between 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 was drawn to the attention of the Panel. This rise had been caused mainly by an increase in natural gas usage in the electricity mix in the United Kingdom (UK) which meant that even if the Council had not increased its consumption during this period, its emissions would have risen regardless. Increased electricity consumption had been caused by the move from gas to electricity in respect of Rowan House, and the doubling of the consumption of electric vehicles (EVs), together with the introduction of 8 new electric vehicles to replace fossil fuelled vehicles during this time. A decrease in hours spent in Council staff working from home had lead to an increase in staff commuting by car, however, this had been offset by increased use of the park and ride scheme which had been supported by the Council introducing free use of the park and ride for staff to come into work since the re-opening of Rowan House, together with a decrease in emissions associated with working from home.

There had been a significant decrease in gas consumption attributed to Leisure World, which represented 5.5% of the total 2023/2024 consumption. The emissions associated with water use were difficult to calculate as usage varied year on year for some buildings or sites, and overall weather conditions. The increase in waste was attributed to the re-opening of Rowan House which previously been empty, although the Panel heard that the calculation of waste emissions was extremely difficult as weights were estimated and could have been overestimated. It was assumed that bins were always full when they were collected, and as the number of collections was known this assumption was used to calculate emissions.

It was important that the Council increased its understanding of its energy data, and metering was being improved to increase understanding energy consumption, particularly in large buildings such as Leisure World to ensure that measures which had been implemented were having the desired effect. Positive changes had been made to areas of Leisure World, but the impact of these would not be fully understood until 2025/2026.

The Chair of the Panel welcomed the update which had been provided, together with the progress which had been made towards supporting more sustainable travel and improving the Council’s building stock, considering that reducing the Council’s emissions was of key importance to achieving its environmental aims.

A Panel member raised concerns around waste, and in particular waste which was generated by Rowan House. She requested that information on rates of recycling of waste from Rowan House be provided to the Panel, and wondered whether comparative waste data from before the closure and re-opening of Rowan House was available? It was good that Officers were being provided with free access to the park and ride scheme to aid in their commute, but how much did this cost the Council in subsidies?

The Climate Emergency Project Officer advised the Panel that he would have to make enquiries in relation to the cost of the subsidised park and ride scheme for staff, before providing an update for the Panel. Figures for the waste associated with Rowan House prior to its closure were available and would be reviewed, however, it was important to note that the conversion factor used to calculate waste emissions had risen by approximately 80% in recent years, and the emissions associated with waste from Rowan House would therefore appear to be very high as the methodology for calculating these had changed.

A Panel member sought to understand whether the Council was on target for reaching its aim of carbon neutrality by 2030? Were bins provided within Rowan House to encourage staff to recycle, and could the rate of recycling be measured? It was important that the volume of recycling be measured to illustrate whether or not the Council was on target. The Climate Emergency Project Officer advised the Panel that recycling bins which were clearly labelled were provided for staff, but that it was probably impractical to measure the contents of each bin every day.

In response to a questioning from the Panel the Climate Emergency Project Officer explained that fugitive emissions were those associated with any leak of gasses from air conditioning or refrigeration units, and transmission and distribution losses were those associated with energy losses through transfer on the national grid.

Simon Davison, Sustainability and Climate Change Manager, attended the meeting and advised the Panel that the Council was not on course to meet its target to become carbon neutral by 2023, and a report on this subject had recently been presented to the Council’s Scrutiny Panel which had recommended that the target be reviewed over the following 12 to 18 months.

RESOLVED that: the contents of the report be noted.

The Panel considered a report which introduced it to the work undertaken in relation to energy management, and provided a summary of the financial and environmental benefits which had been achieved over the preceding 18 months.

George Phillips, Energy Manager, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Panel with its enquiries. The Panel heard that the Energy Manager had been in post for 18 months, and a significant part of this role was to check for anomalies in the Council’s energy bills and usage figures to identify areas for increased savings and efficiency. As a result of this work, savings of £305,000 had been identified, sometimes through simple measures such as locating and checking meters had been correct, and in Rowan House alone an overcharge of almost £70,000 had been identified and a refund requested. The Energy Manager worked closely with a company called Axiom, who validated and verified invoices on behalf of the Council, to continually identify areas where savings could be made, and although some of these savings were relatively small, the cumulative effect would be significant. It was considered that additional savings would be made in the future, and Officers would continue to search for these.

The initial savings which were being made were important, but the Energy Manager was also working with building and estate managers ensure that Council buildings remained comfortable to use as well as financially more efficient. New technology was considered as it emerged to determine if it could be taken advantage of, for example whether gas or electricity was the most appropriate way to power the crematorium in the future. Surveys of the Council’s buildings had been carried out a methodical manner, with areas such as heating and lighting systems considered, together with the occupants of the building and how it was being used. Once this level of understanding had been achieved, it was possible to consider making changes to the technology which was in use to deliver greater efficiency. Each individual building had to be considered separately to determine what changes were appropriate for it, as the Council was responsible for a wide range of assets with different construction and needs, such as the Castle Museum. It was important to consider the best use of resources based on the most comprehensive information which it was possible to gather.

The Energy Manager had also assumed responsibility for the management of all the Council’s electric vehicle (EV) charging points to ensure that these were administered as efficiently as possible. Essex County Council (ECC) currently rented space at Rowan House, and they also wished to charge EVs there. It was important that the Council took the lead in this area, and Officers would work with partners wherever possible to expand the sharing of charging points across the borough.

The Panel expressed its gratitude for the Officer’s report, and considered that the achievements of the Energy Manager deserved wider recognition, with all Councillors being informed of his success. It was suggested that the work of the Energy Manager could form the basis of an all-Councillor briefing, or a communications strategy.

In response to an enquiry from a Panel member, the Energy Manager confirmed that he had carried out work at the Council’s Shrub End Depot, which had included monthly meetings with the Council’s Fleet and Depot Contract Manager and the installation of a new electricity meter. Additionally, the Energy Manager sought to meet with project managers ahead of any major project to ensure that efficient energy use was considered at an early stage.

Noting the savings which had been made, the Panel enquired whether these savings were being re-invested into further initiatives? The Energy Manager confirmed that this was the case, and he was currently working on a water reclamation project at Leisure World. The Council’s trade effluent agreement had been re-negotiated to deliver a saving of approximately £30,000 per year, and a new system had been installed at Leisure World which took 90% of the water which had previously been backwashed from the pool before filtering it, heating it and returning it to the pool. This would deliver huge savings in both water and energy use, and it was anticipated that the cost of the system would be recouped within 2 years, and approximately £30,000 of savings would be realised annually. This project represented the largest re-investment which had been undertaken to date, however, Officers were always looking for further similar opportunities.

RESOLVED that:

- The Energy Manager be thanked for the contents of the report, which the Panel was happy to note;

- Consideration be given to the circulation of an all-Councillor communication to highlight the work which the Energy Manager had undertaken.

The Panel considered a report which detailed key progress and updates from actions in the Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP), and other relevant updates since its last meeting on 1 August 2024.

Ben Plummer, Climate Emergency Project Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Panel with its enquiries. The Panel was invited to consider the information which had been presented to it, and to ask any questions or make any comments which it wished.

The Panel wished to place on record its recognition and gratitude for the high quality of the Officer’s report which had been presented to it. In response to a question from the Panel in relation to the Essex County Council Climate Panel, the Climate Emergency Project Officer confirmed that he did ensure that he kept abreast of the activity of Essex County Council’s Climate Action Commission and monitored the minutes of its meetings. The Council was not currently working on any joint projects with the Commission, however, the Climate Emergency Project Officer would consider whether it was appropriate to provide the Panel with updates on the Commission’s activities in the future.

RESOLVED that: the contents of the report be noted.

Councillor Lissimore declared a non-registerable interest in this item by virtue of the fact that she was the Chair of Essex County Council’s Colchester Local Highways Panel and had been advised by the Council’s Monitoring Officer that she should withdraw from the Panel for the duration of this item.

Councillor Bentley declared a non-registerable interest in this item as he was the Leader of Essex County Council, and as such had been advised by the Council’s Monitoring Officer that he should withdraw from the Panel for the duration of this item.

The Chair of the Panel noted that with the withdrawal of Councillors Lissimore and Bentley, the Panel was no longer quorate, and was unable to consider this agenda item at this meeting. The item would therefore be deferred and considered at a future meeting.

The Panel considered a report which set out its work programme for the current municipal year.

Matthew Evans, Democratic Services Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Panel with its enquires.

The Panel noted that the report which it had been due to consider at the meeting concerning the wider adoption of 20mph speed limits in Colchester had been deferred to its next meeting.

The Panel wished to extend an invitation to the Council’s Energy Manager to attend a future meeting of the Panel to provide an update on his work, when he felt that this was appropriate.

RESOLVED that: the contents of the work programme be noted, save for the deferral of the report ‘Wider Adoption of 20 miles per hour speed limits in Colchester’ to the meeting of the Panel scheduled for 20 March 2025.