Meeting Details

Edward Barratt attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1). He lived on the site of the Roman Circus, opposite a section of the grounds of the Abbey Gardens, which had been owned by the Council since 2013. The area was one of historical importance because it contained a wall which was a scheduled ancient monument, together with a mound which it was believed held large numbers of plague victims, and was within the Roman Circus. The area was also known for its significant wildlife, it was within the Conservation Area and was the home to protected badgers and ground nesting red listed birds.

On the mornings of 10 and 11 March 2025, contractors had entered the Abbey Gardens and, from conversation with them, Mr Barrat understood that they had cleared substantial quantities of foliage and trees from around the wall, and had not been aware that the work was being undertaken during nesting season or the implications of this.

Having been alerted to the proposed work, he made contact with the Council's Planning Department (Arboricultural Officer). The Officer duly confirmed that it was Council policy to avoid work of this type in nesting season but that if such work was necessary, the contractors would, as a matter of course, conduct the necessary checks for nesting birds. If he had been concerned about the lawfulness of the contractor's actions, he should contact the police, however, the site was closed to the public on safety grounds. Mr Barrett had no issue with work being undertaken to maintain the wall, however, he was concerned by the fact that contrary to standard practice this work was conducted during nesting season. It had also been undertaken without any apparent checks for nesting birds or supervision by the Council, and had appeared to involve the use of a mechanical digger. What action would the Council now take, and who had overall policy responsibility in situations of this nature to ensure more appropriate management of them?

Mel Rundle, Head of Sustainability, attended the meeting and responded to the points which Mr Barratt had raised. She had spoken with the Council’s Countryside and Open Spaces team who managed works of this nature on behalf of the City. The work had been carried out in a conservation area in March because once a contractor had been procured to undertake works, there would be a delay until the work was scheduled to be completed. It was unfortunate that these works had strayed into the beginning of the bird nesting season, and this was not ideal. The Council had spoken to the contractors and reminded them of the necessity to undertake checks for potential bird nesting activity or actual nests prior to works, and assurances had been received that these checks had been carried out prior to the works taking place. A site meeting had been held on site early in January 2025 to consider the works with the contractor. It was standard practice for all the Council’s contractors to carry out any necessary checks when they had to carry out vegetation works in bird nesting season, and reassurances had been offered that these checks had taken place.

The works which had been undertaken were directly for the protection of the Roman Walls by removing ivy that could damage the walls, and by removing elder suckers from around the walls which would also over time be detrimental. This removal work was carried out by hand to lessen its impact, and machinery was only then brought in to flail the cut material at the end. This work was contracted by the Council’s Parks Countryside and Open Spaces Team who managed all the grounds maintenance, parks, country parks and open spaces across the city. The team were well aware of the rules and regulations regarding bird nesting.

Mr Barratt questioned why there had been such a long gap between the preparatory planning and the work actually taking place at the site, which was an obvious area of concern for him. Although he understood the Council’s policies clearly, he had serious doubts that the necessary checks had been carried out prior to the work taking place, however, without more precise control this was impossible to determine. The wall was very old, and composed of a number of materials, and he failed to understand the urgency of this work.

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 both he and Councillor Goacher had been campaigning against the Council’s use of toxic pesticides prior to their elections, and in 2019 the Council had unanimously agreed to ban the use of glyphosate. However, in December 2024, a report had been presented to the Panel which had suggested that the Council should start to use glyphosate again because non-glyphosate alternatives and maintenance was costing the Council £40,000. It was pleasing that when considering this report, the Panel had shared his concerns that the report had focussed only finances and not other elements associated with the use of glyphosates such as health and wellbeing and environmental gains. It also appeared that a revised report had been presented to Cabinet in error before this had been approved by the Panel. He had emailed staff in relation to the use of glyphosate and was concerned that his views had not been considered, and the Council had not explored community partnerships. Additionally, the Council had cancelled ‘No Mow May’, had used pictures of wildflowers as weeds to promote its revenue generating brown bin scheme, and twice attempted to make a decision on toxic pesticides based on finance-focussed reports.

During the last meeting of Cabinet, it had been claimed that the proposed change in the Council’s use of glyphosate had not been significant when in fact the report had suggested that play areas, car parks, footpaths and historic walls and features were all potential areas where glyphosate could be used. The Panel was urged to take the use of pesticides seriously because of its potential impact both on children and assistance dogs which many residents replied on.

The Head of Sustainability responded to Councillor Çufoglu and confirmed that Officers had offered to meet with him at various times, and had responded to his emails. Officers were very happy to meet with him in person or online.

The Chair of the Panel confirmed that following the recent Cabinet meeting, an additional meeting of the Panel would be convened during the current municipal year to specifically discuss the issue of the use of glyphosates.

Councillor Çufoglu conceded that Officers had responded to him, but this had been outside working hours. Despite his numerous requests that community groups be liaised with, there was confusion over whether the Council’s ‘Litter Warriors’ volunteers now had the remit to weed pick as well as litter pick, what was the position?

The Head of Sustainability confirmed to the Panel that the ‘Litter Warriors’ volunteers were managed by the Council’s Neighbourhood Services Team, and after the meeting she would seek clarification on whether the volunteers were able and willing to carry out weed picking activity. At its meeting in December 2024, the Panel had specifically requested that an amended report concerning the use of glyphosate be presented directly to Cabinet to avoid any delay in this being considered. She was happy to meet with Councillor Çufoglu ahead of the additional meeting of the Panel which would be scheduled for late April.

Robert Johnstone attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1) as a representative of the campaign group “20’s Plenty for Colchester”.

He wished to congratulate the City Council for agreeing a motion at Full Council in December 2024 in relation to adopting 20mph as a default speed limit where residents supported this, as well as the hard work of the Officers who had produced a well-balanced and well-researched report. Much of Colchester was already subject to 20mph speed limits, however, unfortunately these limits had been implemented with a piecemeal approach which was confusing, less effective and often ignored by many drivers.

The Panel heard that 20mph had been the default speed limit in Wales since September 2023, affecting approximately a third of the road network. Consequently, data was now available to assess the success, or failure, of the Welsh Governments' decision, and which the Council could also use to support any decisions it made in relation to this. The number of people who had been killed or seriously injured in Wales had fallen by 28% compared to the previous year, with 10 fewer deaths and over 100 fewer serious injuries.

Although the report before the Panel stated that there were no specific financial considerations to the Council, Mr Johnstone suggested that the introduction of 20mph speed limits brought a range of benefits to tax paying residents of Colchester. It had been estimated that each fatality cost the economy around £1m, including costs to the NHS, the Ambulance Service; loss of earnings and loss of taxation. It would also save money for the Highway Authorities as there would be much less need for signage, controlled crossings, and signals. Additionally, many car insurers were reducing premiums for drivers who mostly drove in areas with a default 20mph speed limit, simply because there are fewer collisions. Streets will be quieter, reducing the scourge of noise pollution, and slower car speeds would boost the confidence of people to cycle and walk around their local areas and for children to play outdoors.

Colchester would not be alone in deciding to implement a 20mph default speed limit, Portsmouth, Warrington, Calderdale and Bristol were just some of the towns and cities which had already taken this step.

The cost of implementation of the speed limit in Wales had been £32 million, and savings of approximately £90 million had been delivered in the first year.

Mr Johnstone, considered that introducing 20mph speed limits was good for saving lives and preventing injuries, saving money, helping more active travel and was good for communities and the planet.

Councillor Law attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 4(1). She wished to offer her thanks to the previous speaker Mr Johnstone, with whom she had worked on Myland Community Council, for the work which he had carried out in support of his community. She wished to highlight a number of areas in relation to the introduction of a default 20mph speed limit in Colchester, and the importance of this in her own ward which contained 3 schools, together with additional community facilities. Although there were already some 20mph zones, these had been adopted in a piecemeal manner, and although it was important to encourage children to walk to school, parents became understandably anxious about areas of higher speed limits which may be along routes to schools, and it would be sensible, where appropriate, to introduce a wider 20mph speed limit are as a default, and not just around schools. When 20mph speed limits had been implemented, vehicles tended to drive at a more constant speed which served to cut emissions with the associated health benefits, and when vehicle speeds were lower, residents were encouraged to cycle and walk more, particularly the more vulnerable members of a community. When residents felt able to travel in an active way in an area, this supported good health outcomes in a variety of ways.

The attention of the Panel was drawn to the congoing local government reorganisation which was likely to bring significant changes to council structures in Essex, and it was suggested that if would form a very positive legacy if the Council could help to encourage measures such as wider adoption of 20mph speed limits which would benefit residents far into the future. It was very positive that the campaign for 20mph speed limits was being led by residents, and Councillor Law hoped that the Panel would offer its support for these aims.

Councillor Çufoglu attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 4(1). He had received an email from Rosebery and Smythies Residents Association which had highlighted concerns of residents around pets being killed by vehicles in the avenues and wondering whether a 20mph speed limit could be introduced. Rosebery Avenue led to 2 schools and a nursery, so lots of children and parents used this route as a shortcut. The Rosebery and Smythies Residents Association would like the Council to take an active role to ensure that there was a 20mph speed limit in necessary areas to ensure safe streets for children and pedestrians. Councillor Çufoglu witnessed speeding cars on a daily basis, and reading about deaths on the road caused by speeding vehicles was very concerning. He encouraged the Panel to embrace an active role in ensuring that the streets of Colchester were safe for all.

Mike Polom, Transport and Sustainability Project Officer, attended the meeting to introduce the report and assist the Panel with its enquires. He advised the Panel that at a previous meeting residents had raised the subject of 20mph speed limits, which they had requested be implemented consistently across Colchester. Additionally, a motion had also been agreed at Full Council in December 2024 which had supported the “20’s Plenty for Colchester” campaign across Colchester’s urban and rural areas when supported by residents, and this motion fell in line with Essex County Council (ECC)’s Place and Movement Strategy. The report which before the Panel sought to set out research into the introduction and implications of introducing 20mph speed limits as a default speed limit, and it was recommended that the Panel consider the report and work with ECC, who were the Highway Authority.

ECC’s Place and Movement strategy measured levels of movement and place as opposed to throughput in an area, and it considered how roads and streets were categorised, recognising that they were used in different ways, and a variety of uses would be supported by the introduction of a 20mph speed limit. Significant evidence was available that 20mph speed limits would benefit communities, and Officers recommended that this limit should be introduced on a case-by-case basis with the support of local residents.

A Panel member welcomed the debate which had taken place at the meeting of Full Council in December 2024 around this issue, and had been pleased that Full Council had approved the motion that had been put to it, albeit with some amendment. She was, however, slightly concerned at the suggestion that a 20mph speed limit would only be introduced where residents wished for it, which may lead to issues with implementation if different roads within the same area expressed different wishes. How would a proposed scheme more forward in this instance? She also expressed concern about the length of time it took to complete projects, noting that when she had been a County Councillor 4 years ago, she had obtained funding for school streets in Wivenhoe which still had not been implemented. Many Councillors would know families who had lost loved ones on the roads, and as a responsible authority the Council should now use its influence to bring forward a blanket 20mph speed limit across Colchester, and not just in individual areas.

Offering a slightly different view, a Panel member considered that the discussion of the introduction of 20mph speed limits which had taken place at Full Council had seemed to be focussed on urban areas, and there was also a desire for this limit to be introduced in rural areas. It was easy for the Council to pass motions in support of suggestions, however, what was needed now was action. The Panel heard that Birmingham had introduced a 20mph speed limit on 85% of its streets as a single action, and this was the most efficient way to accomplish such a change. It was accepted that such an approach may not be possible in Colchester, however, there was an area in which the Council should be making the strongest possible representations, and this was in relation to the imposition of 20mph speed limits in proximity to schools. It was accepted that such an imposition would be a sensible safety measure and the Council should use its general power of competence to champion this suggestion. Introducing a more general 20mph speed limit across the whole borough would take too long, and the issue needed to be addressed in smaller, more manageable sections which could be pushed forward quickly. The Council should campaign on this basis and use its own resources to ensure that such limits were put in place as soon as possible. The Panel was asked to consider a recommendation to Cabinet which stated that:

- This Council offer to defray Essex County Council’s legal and advertising costs to implement a 20mph speed limit 200m on either side of every school entrance throughout the city, and further negotiated to share the cost of providing any signage required.

It was noted that the Council possessed substantial amounts of money in its reserves, and although an argument could be made that this money should be used to support other worthy causes, it was suggested that the importance of this issue should afford it the highest priority.

The Transport and Sustainability Project Officer advised the Panel that the introduction of a 20mph speed limit was a function of Essex County Council Highways, and the suggested recommendation fitted in with ECC’s current policy. He considered that the most appropriate way to approach the issue would be for Panel members to converse directly with Cabinet on this point.

The Panel debated the proposed recommendation to Cabinet, and its opinions on the proposal were divided. A Panel member noted that the issue of 20mph speed limits had been the subject of discussion for a number of years, and it had been considered that imposing speed restrictions in the areas immediately surrounding schools would be ineffective, as children would also be walking in areas where no restrictions had been imposed on their way to school, and for this reason it was necessary to impose wider, rather than limited, restrictions. The Panel indicated its support for the recommendation to Cabinet contained in the Officer’s report, but some members expressed concern about the additional recommendation to Cabinet which had been made, considering that any death on the road was a tragedy, and broader strategies were needed to make the roads safer for all.

A Panel member had recently take part in a consultation on 20mph speed limits which had been supported by ECC, and considered that seeking residents support for any proposed scheme was the correct way to approach the issue. If the proposed additional recommendation to Cabinet meant that 20mph speed limits could be imposed more quickly around schools, then this would have her support, although wider change was also needed.

The Head of Sustainability advised the Panel that she considered that it was unlikely that the suggested recommendation would be implemented before ECC was dissolved as a likely outcome of local government devolution. The recommendation which was contained in the Officer’s report did already suggest that the Council work with ECC, and others, to investigate reducing speed limits where appropriate.

In a bid to draw the discussion to a conclusion, a Panel member asked the Panel to consider that no costings were available for the suggestion that the Council defray the costs of implementing 20mph zones around schools, and offered an addition to the recommendation contained in the Officer’s report with the following wording:

- …and that particular and immediate attention is given to areas surrounding schools.

This suggestion was, however, not accepted as a replacement for the additional recommendation to Cabinet which had been proposed, and the Panel was asked to proceed to the vote.

RECOMMENDED to Cabinet:

- 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, and that particular and immediate attention is given to areas surrounding schools.

- That this Council offers to defray Essex County Council’s legal and advertising costs to associated with the implementation of 20mph speed limits in areas 200m to each side of every school entrance throughout the city, and that he Council further negotiates with Essex County Council to share the costs of any signage required.  

The Panel considered a report which set out the results of the Council's participation in a 2024 national pilot which had sought to understand the feasibility of introducing a set of minimum environmental standards for outdoor events.

Ben Plummer, Climate Emergency Project Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Panel with its enquiries. The Council had taken part in a project in 2024 which had been set up by an organisation called The Vision for Sustainable Events, who were a consultancy group working in the sphere of outdoor events. The project had sought to consider whether there should be a minimum set of environmental standards that outdoor events should abide by, and it sought to test whether a set of minimum standards which it had identified, which was called the Green Events Code of Practice, could be implemented by the local authorities participating in the pilot.

The Panel received a presentation which sought to highlight key points in the report. The Council was one of the smallest councils of the 10 which had participated in the pilot, and during the course of the project 60 events had been assessed for environmental practices which had attracted a total of over 2.3m visitors. This had provided learning opportunities for the Council through working with other authorities and considering area of best practice which could be adopted.

Most local authorities who participated in the scheme indicated that it had improved their understanding of environmental sustainability and how to embed this in relevant policies, and event organisers had also been able to implement new environmental measures as a result of participation. It was hoped that a wider programme could be put forward in the future encompassing more events and councils with the aim of introducing a set of nationwide minimum standards which events had to adhere to, although it was accepted that local authorities would need significant support to implement this.

As a result of participating in the pilot programme, changes had been made to the Council’s Events Policy, which had been appended to the Officer’s report, to include more information on sustainability and guidance for event organisers on how to reduce their environmental impact for events on Council land. Given that the number of events and attendees on Council land was increasing, it was considered that further improvements would be needed in the future.

A Panel member raised concerns about events which had been held in Castle Park in Colchester which had left the grass churned up and in an unusable state. The park was provided for the enjoyment of all visitors to the site, and not just event goers, and there needed to be a balance between obtaining commercial income and ensuring that the park could be enjoyed by all. She had also read articles which voiced concern about the availability of drinking water at events on Council land, and considered that free and easily accessible drinking water should be provided where possible, and this should be a matter which was addressed in the Council’s policies. The Climate Emergency Project Officer would feed these concerns back to the Events Company which managed events on the Council’s land.

The Head of Sustainability attended the meeting and advised the Panel that she had been working closely with the Council’s Events Company to consider infrastructure in Castle Park to see how this area could be used for future events whilst maintaining the exceptional quality of the site for the benefit of all visitors. There was a desire from all parties to ensure that use of Council sites did not cause any issues for other visitors.

A Panel member noted that the Officer’s report, paragraph 5.3, referenced the Green Events Code of Practice (GECoP) which included the suggestion that consumption of meat and dairy products should be reduced at events. He considered that this was not an appropriate stance for the Council to take for events which it was involved with running, believing that attendees at these events should be provided with a free and unfettered dietary choice, and accordingly wished to propose that the Panel made a recommendation to Cabinet that:

- Cabinet takes steps to ensure that attendees at events held on Council land have a free and unfettered dietary choice available to them, and that the Council should not seek to influence this choice.

The Climate Emergency Project Officer clarified that the suggestion contained in the report at paragraph 5.3 was not included in any policy of the Council but was contained in the GECoP. There was no intention to control what food was purchased at events on Council land, and attendees would always be able to buy meat options if they wished. At the current time there was an abundance of concession vans selling meat products at events, and all the GECoP sought to do was introduce a great variety of choice for patrons.

The Panel discussed at length the proposed additional recommendation which had been made, and it received advice from the Head of Sustainability and the Democratic Services Officer in attendance on the suitability of making a recommendation to Cabinet in respect of a policy which was not the Council’s.

RESOLVED that: - the contents of the report be noted.

RECMOMENDED to Cabinet: - Cabinet takes steps to ensure that attendees at events held on Council land have a free and unfettered dietary choice available to them, and that the Council should not seek to influence this choice.

The Panel considered a report which summarised key progress which had been achieved across the preceding year, particularly since the publication of the latest Climate Emergency Action Plan in October 2024, alongside ongoing and future workstreams for 2025 and beyond.

Councillor Çufoglu attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 4(1). He wished to raise 4 points:

1. During the last Panel meeting, he had referred to section 5.19 of the Climate Officer’s report and requested that new actions also included a Pollinator Strategy. Although it was resolved that the contents of the report be noted, there was no such inclusion or mention in the Climate Emergency Action Plan – Year Review. He believed that developing a Pollinator Strategy could help with the Council’s Biodiversity Duty Reporting. He would appreciate it if the Panel could ensure that the development of a Pollinator Strategy would be on top of its agenda in the new municipal year.

2. He noted that since declaring a climate emergency in July 2019, Colchester City Council had been reporting on both its greenhouse gas emissions and the actions that are being taken to reduce emissions and environmental impacts across Colchester, however, according to 2023 Climate Emergency UK Climate Action Scorecards Assessment, the Council had lost points for not reporting its own greenhouse gas emissions; and had lost further points because, the Council's own greenhouse gas emissions had not reduced since 2019. Could he request some clarity in relation to the Councils reporting and greenhouse gas emissions reductions since 2019?

3. Under the Climate Emergency UK Climate Action Scorecards Assessment, the had Council missed the opportunity to get points due to not providing climate awareness training to all senior management and Councillors in the Cabinet and Committee Chairs. Could the Chair ensure that next year all Councillors received the necessary training, and greater emphasis was given to establishing collaborative partnerships and awareness raising with Colchester residents? 

4. According to the Council’s 2023 Climate Emergency UK Climate Action Scorecards Assessment, the Council raised income for climate action from both property development and other sources. Could Officers clarify: o How much income the Council had raised for climate action from property development, and o How was this money spent? o How much income the Council raised for climate action from any other sources, what these sources were, and now this money had been spent?

Mel Rundle, Head of Sustainability, attended the meeting and responded to Councillor Çufoglu. The suggestion of the creation of a Pollinator Strategy had been raised at the meeting of the Panel in December 2024, and she had responded at that time to confirm that this was something that Officers could consider, however, at the present time there was insufficient resource to create such a strategy. The Council’s Parks and Countryside Team already carried out work which would fall within the scope of such a strategy, and the team had started to consider areas of best practice including considering areas where long grass and wildflowers would be encouraged in the future.

Ben Plummer, Climate Emergency Project Officer, responded to Councillor Çufoglu and requested the text of the questions that he had asked, in order that a full response could be provided to all the questions after the meeting. In respect of the marks which the Council had lost on its Climate Action Scorecards Assessment, the reasons for this were known and had been addressed so that marks would be awarded in the future. The reason marks had not been awarded was because the Council had not been clear about the methodology it had used to calculate its emissions and had just published the figures on its website. In fact, emissions had reduced by 13% since 2019.

With regard to renewable energy used for Council operations, the Council did have a few solar panels on its buildings, but these did not produce enough renewable energy to power all the electricity demands at the sites. Points were available under the Scorecards Assessment for having an energy tariff which was 100% supported by green energy, and it was possible for this to be considered in the future.

Climate Awareness training was not provided to senior management at the Council, but was an e-learning module which was available to all staff on a voluntary basis and was not of sufficient length to earn any marks under the Scorecards Assessment. Carbon Literacy training had been arranged for Cabinet members and other Councillors in the preceding year, and although a number of senior Councillors had attended, not all Cabinet members and Committee Chairs had been able to.

The Climate Emergency Project Officer attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Panel with its enquiries. The Panel heard that the Council had published the first version of its Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP) in 2020 and had made changes to this document since this time, with the most recent document published in October 2024 on the Council’s website. The Panel received a presentation which summarised the key progress and achievements which had been made against the CEAP in the preceding financial year and which were contained in the Officer’s report. The Panel was asked note the contents of the update and to ask any questions which it had, making suggestions for areas which it considered should be the basis of future work in this area.

A Panel member wondered whether any e-bikes had been adapted for the use of people with disabilities to enable them to travel from the station into town, and whether consideration had been given to providing public drinking fountains to enable the public to refill water bottles. The Climate Emergency Project Officer was happy to consider the current locations of water fountains and potentially identify gaps in their provision, together with promoting refilling campaigns.

Mike Polom, Transport and Sustainability Project Officer attended the meeting, and advised the Panel that the Council did not have any e-bikes which had been adapted for use by those with a disability, however, an organisation called ‘Wheels for All’ operated in Colchester and provided a wide array of adapted modes of travel. In general terms, e-bikes were generally very helpful for those with a disability as the electric power provided aided cycling. There were 2 different hire schemes within Colchester, scooters which were provided by a company called Dott, and the Council’s own e-bikes and e-cargo bikes which were available for residents to hire, and all of these vehicles were provided with headlights for safety. If Councillors were concerned about any safety issues with the Dott scooters, then they were encouraged to raise these direct with the local Dott team, who were very responsive.

Turning to the issue of making energy efficient home improvements, a Panel member noted that she had been speaking to residents in conservation areas who had registered concerns that they were unable to improve their properties due to restrictions in the Council’s planning policies, for example external cladding being prohibited in a conservation area, was there a conflict between Council policies here? In respect of grant funding to allow energy efficiency upgrades to homes, it was note that although 23 homes had been upgraded, in general uptake had been poor as there had been a number of barriers to accessing the funding, had this situation improved?

The Climate Emergency Project Officer was not in a position to provide any further information in respect of the interaction between conservation zones and energy efficient home improvements, and would seek clarification on this issue. The Panel heard that in respect of the Home Upgrade Grant, the Council had formed part of a larger consortium and as a result of this, a sum of money had been received to provide home upgrades. The scheme had underperformed in terms of uptake, and part of this had been caused by residents being wary of the scheme. There had been no national campaigns in respect of home upgrade schemes, and as a result residents may have struggled to find information. In the future it was hope that a more targeted approach could be taken in specific areas where people were more likely to qualify for funding to reinforce the message that the schemes were legitimate and could be of benefit.

In discussion, the Panel considered the likely implications of the approaching local government re-organisation, and wondered whether any work was being undertaken with likely local authority partners to prepare for this. The Climate Emergency Project Officer confirmed that Officers were naturally working with equivalent Officers across North Essex and would continue to foster these connections, and the Head of Sustainability advised that she had meetings scheduled with her counterparts in other local authorities to explore the possibilities and implications of local government re-organisation.

A Panel member believed that it was necessary to be able to quantify improvements which had been made in order to be able to effectively manage them, and wondered whether too much information was being provided which made it difficult to determine how effective the Council’s activities had been. Was it possible to include information in future reporting how each measure implemented would reduce the percentage of carbon associated with the Council’s emissions, and emissions on a wider scale? With regard to the waste and recycling statistics, it was pleasing to see that the Council was performing well, however, he had seen no estimate of the effect of composting in these statistics. Composting of food waste would serve to reduce the volume of household waste which was collected, however, was composting an environmentally friendly activity in terms of the gasses the process released?

The Climate Emergency Project Officer explained that it would not be feasible to approximate how the work which the Council was carrying out was reducing the emissions of the City of Colchester, as far too great a quantity of data would be required to make any calculation meaningful. It may be possible to communicate the positive steps which the Council was taking mor effectively, for example by providing more data on the number of deliveries facilitated by e-cargo bikes. The Council produced a Greenhouse Gas Report each year which did detail how its emissions had changed, and this report, where possible, contained illustrative data on where emissions had been reduced. Officers were keen to improve the level of detailed reporting which was available for sites such as Leisure World, and applications for funding had been made which would support a more detailed understanding of the difference which energy efficiency savings had made. It would be more appropriate for an Officer from the Council’s Waste team to comment on the benefits of composting, however, the Panel was assured that home composting carried greater environmental benefits that disposing of compostable material in household waste. Mike Polom, Transport and Sustainability Project Officer, attended meeting and advised the Panel that Officers were currently undertaking training on the use of data as a whole, including how data was collected and analysed.

RESOLVED that: the contents of the report be noted.

The Panel considered a report setting 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 heard that an additional meeting would be scheduled for 28 April 2025 specifically to discuss a report on the Council’s use of herbicides. Other changes to the work programme were detailed in the Officer’s report, and the Panel was asked to note these.

RESOLVED that: the contents of the report be noted.