Meeting Details

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings held on 16 May 2024 and 4 June 2024 be approved as correct records.

A statement from Mr Nick Chilvers was read to the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5(1) and 5(7), to raise questions regarding the Council’s greening and street care services, and recent consultations on these areas with residents. These questions included whether there would be staffing reductions, whether litter bins would be removed, a request for details about the community enabling approach, whether ‘No Mow May’ was Council policy, a request for information about re-wilding, use of weed killers, changes to street care, expectations as to action by residents to clear weeds and maintenance of gateway routes to Colchester. Mr Chilvers suggested taking money from leisure service provision and using it on street maintenance instead.

The Chair noted that the questions asked could be addressed by the Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure as part of his briefing at this meeting.

Mr Alan Short addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), to note that the Panel had previously committed to scrutinise the Council’s relationship and negotiations with Alumno [regarding past plans for regeneration of land between Firstsite and Queen Street], and to examine what might have gone wrong. Mr Short spoke about the costs and ramifications of what had occurred, limitations on the use of the site, and disagreements between the Council and Essex County Council. Mr Short alleged that correspondence had been supressed, and asked when the Panel would examine this subject. Mr Short also alleged that a letter regarding Middlewick Range, from Natural England, had been supressed prior to the Local Plan being approved, and claimed that this letter had argued for more investigation and that Natural England had stated it reserved the right to object to any development on the site.

Owen Howell, Democratic Services Officer, explained that he had consulted with Andrew Weavers, Monitoring Officer, at the start of the municipal year, to obtain an update on the potential for scrutiny of Alumno-related matters. The Monitoring Officer had confirmed that the Council still had a contractual relationship with Alumno, which meant that any scrutiny of the relationship by elected members would need to be carried out in private session. Open discussion could only take place once that contractual relationship had ended.

Regarding the correspondence from Natural England, the Chair committed to write to the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability, to request a written explanation as to what had happened.

Mr Short argued that the answer given regarding Alumno was an excuse, to avoid embarrassment, and claimed that the briefing given to negotiators by Cabinet had been different to the details of the agreement signed, stating that the agreement had not been taken to Cabinet prior to it being signed.

Sir Bob Russell addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), to raise the issue of Middle Mill Weir, noting that it had been 212 days since the Weir had collapsed. Sir Bob argued that the report on this issue, within the agenda, was incomplete and did not include noting of the statutory duties of the Council towards conservation and did not allow members of the public to view the content of the confidential appendix. Sir Bob noted that Essex Highways owned the bridge, and should be involved in financing remedial works, with the length of time having elapsed being too long. Sir Bob stated that there was no mention of the cycle route, the effects on Castle Park events, and the Saxon history of the site. Anglian Water were reported as saying it would prefer a rebuilding of the Weir, but Sir Bob stated that a letter had said that Anglian Water’s position was that they wanted a full rebuild, which was in agreement with the Ardleigh Reservoir Committee. Sir Bob ventured that the Colchester Canoe Club, having operated over around 30 years, would not continue if the Weir were not to be reinstated, and that residents in the neighbourhood wanted this to be done. The metal barriers were noted, and Sir Bob asked how much these cost, and who paid for them. Four trees had been lost due to the reduced water level, and the outlook of the historic riverside cottages harmed.

The Chair agreed that the loss of access was lamentable, but expressed gratitude that the Council was consulting widely, due to the wide impact.

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure, explained that his portfolio now included some operational parts of sport and leisure provision, and provided highlights of work within his remit.

The public toilet refurbishment in Lion Walk had been a success, £50k funding had been sourced for a van to tow a Karcher cleaner, 700 voluntary litter warriors were working across Colchester, and the Knife Angel had visited the City. 

The key performance indicator (KPI) for fly-tipping had been set as 2,062 incidents. 1,962 incidents had been reported, so performance was better than the target. There had been no increase in incidents following the introduction of the new garden waste system. Few incidents of garden waste dumping had been reported. A draft new Recycling & Waste Strategy was being reviewed by the public, with a questionnaire issued. The Portfolio Holder posited that this questionnaire was somewhat clunky, but would inform the new Waste Strategy, being produced in conjunction with the Essex Waste Partnership, which was looking to review the Essex-wide strategy. Over 2,000 people had responded thus far. The new Strategy would expand the use of wheelie bins, and had been worked upon, on a cross-party basis, by the Environment and Sustainability Panel.

Colchester now had the third highest recycling rate in Essex. Rochford had the highest rate, at 58%, with Colchester achieving 53.5%, up from around 42% in 2016. Tendring’s rate was at 38.6% and Brentwood had recorded the worst performance in the area. Nationally, Colchester came third in the rankings of local authorities using a mixed recycling collection system, with West Oxfordshire top at 56.8% and Mid Devon second with 55.4%. This showed that the Strategy worked. Residual waste collection was at 321kg per household in the year, which was better than the target level set, alongside the better-than-target performance in the area of recycling/reusing/composting.

The Council looked after more than 73 playgrounds, and was making investments. Improvement works were listed, as were works that had been scheduled for the future.

1,900 litter and dog bins were sited across the Council’s area. Whilst some officers had wanted to potentially remove a large number, the Portfolio Holder was not in favour of this, and had instead approved the removal of dog waste bins where these were found near general waste bins, which could be used for dog waste, or where they could be replaced by new general waste bins. This work was ongoing. The Portfolio Holder answered a question by giving assurance that signage was in place to inform the public that general waste bins could be used for disposal of dog waste.

The portfolio included car parking, and antisocial behaviour at car parks. The Chair asked about the parking app in use, and whether it would be better to move to a system for paying on exit, rather than paying for an amount of time at the start, which could lead to people rushing to get back in time, and spending less time there than they otherwise would. The Portfolio Holder explained that the Council used the MiPermit app, which was a generic app, in line with other Councils. The Head of Parking was looking at other options, as part of the Car Parking Strategy work. The Portfolio Holder did not disagree with the Chair’s suggestion, but explained that if the parking app was easy to use, then stays could easily be extended.

The Portfolio Holder was asked if there was much appetite for recycling bins in the City Centre, responding that there was already a range of recycling bins along the High Street.

Questions were asked about the garden waste subscription scheme, and whether there could be changes made, so that people who registered part-way through a year would not need to pay the same rate as those who participated for the full year, possibly with rolling annual subscriptions, or a monthly subscription. The Portfolio Holder stated that this would not happen, and that this had been discussed previously at Scrutiny Panel. The Portfolio Holder agreed that it wasn’t fair for people to have to pay a full year subscription for only receiving the service for part of a year, and explained that it had been agreed that the potential for part-year promotions would be examined. When the scheme had been initially rolled out, an offer of 15 months service use for the price of 12 months had been offered to residents.

A Panel member asked if dog waste bins were being removed when sited next to compactor bins. The Portfolio Holder gave assurance that this would not be done, as compactor bins had higher capacity and did not usually require emptying so frequently. Following further questions about compactor bins, the Portfolio Holder explained that these bins were only changed when their internal sensors indicated this was necessary. This saved officer time and travel costs incurred from operations to replace bins with empty ones.

The Portfolio Holder was asked if he was confident that the £1m of savings identified as necessary would be achieved. The Portfolio Holder stated his confidence they would be achieved, via a range of options, including measures in the draft Waste Strategy. The service area had a good record of meeting targets.

When asked if street care was still a priority, the Portfolio Holder explained that issues such as removing weeds in roads were the responsibility of Essex County Council [ECC], which used buggies to spray glyphosate weed killer. These continued spraying even in the rain, which was ineffective due to being washed away, and the Portfolio Holder informed the Panel that he was to write to Councillor Cunningham [ECC Portfolio Holder for Highways, Infrastructure and Sustainable Transport] about this, and to urge for dead weeds to be ripped out after spraying. The Council had ceased its use of glyphosate weedkillers, which had seen the effect of increased weeds in play areas and other spaces. Officers had been directed to review the cost effect of not using glyphosate weedkillers. 

Monthly grass cuts were carried out by idverde, but these had struggled to keep up with the increased growth caused by the mix of sunny and rainy weather. The Council currently mowed all ECC land in the area, for the annual contribution of only £60k. With costs escalated, the Council had been forced to reduce its cuts per year from 14 or eight, down to only six per year. Negotiations were being conducted to increase the contribution for this service, or to hand the maintenance duties back to ECC, as the Council was currently subsidising the County Council for this work.

A Panel member noted that Wivenhoe had well publicised what it was doing for ‘No Mow May.’ The Portfolio Holder explained that the Council’s website held a list of rewilding areas. In 2023-24, verges had been left in May. This year, the Portfolio Holder had made the decision to cut verges, except in rewilding areas. The delay in mowing in the previous year had caused difficulties in subsequent cutting operations. The very hot Summer in 2023 had then meant that less cutting was needed. The Portfolio Holder described feedback that he was sending to idverde regarding problems with their teams not picking up litter before mowing.

The Portfolio Holder was asked how much area street sweepers could cover in a day, and how many were in use. The Portfolio Holder explained that the Council’s contractor, Riverside, had improved machine reliability, so the machines spent more time in use. The next generation of machines were being considered, so that the Council could buy or lease the best machines possible, once the current generation reached end-of-life.

Councillor Jay, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, introduced the report, and apologised for the benchmarking data being missing, due to resourcing issues. This was being followed up, as the data was useful to consider. 26 performance indicators were in operation, split between the five themes of the Strategic Plan. 18 were ‘green’, whilst six targets had not been met. Customer satisfaction (in housing) had improved recently, from ‘amber’ to ‘green’. Rent collection rates had been behind, at the six-month point, but were now ‘green.’ Leisure centre income was now above target, and museum income had risen. Bereavement Services income had dropped by 13%, but only to return to be in line with pre-Covid rates. There was a new website, and soft-sell options, related to Bereavement Services. Regarding Disability Fund Grants, there had been improvements in spending these funds.

33.13% of households now had brown wheelie bins for the garden waste collection service. There had been no increase in fly tipping rates, or in collection weights for residual household waste. Performance in recycling was high, but the Portfolio Holder cautioned that the choice had been made to not allocate money towards tree planting or biodiversity work.

‘Red’ rated KPIs were found relating to housing. 975 households had been declared homeless, with 312 going into temporary accommodation, of which 86 were in Bed and Breakfast. A significant percentage of cases involved families seeking three- or four-bedroom properties. Colchester Borough Homes [CBH] was working hard to alleviate their situations.

The KPI for time to relet empty properties was now meeting its target, reducing from 31 days to 28 days for the last four months of the year, through use of a new contractor, and increase in in-house work done. ‘Repairs completed within target timescale’ continued to be ‘red’, but had now improved from 74% up to around 84%.

The Portfolio Holder expressed her satisfaction with the Strategic Plan Delivery Plan content, albeit that the Council was rated ‘amber’ regarding its Climate Change Action Plan, which was due to come to Scrutiny Panel for consideration later this year.

The Panel considered the performance information, with comment being made that there were many targets being met, even in the context of difficulties following the Covid pandemic.

The Portfolio Holder was asked to give some explanation as to the target of 2,000 tree plantings, what canopy coverage percentage the Colchester area had, how this could be increased, how many tree whips survived after planting, tree types used and whether the Woodland Trust still donated trees for planting. The Panel discussed this, with comments that the Council should do better in this area, with this year being a missed opportunity due to significant rainfall, but limited plantings. Mel Rundle, Head of Sustainability, agreed with the points made, with trees reducing carbon footprints, increasing biodiversity and improving the landscape. An option given was for a KPI target for successful tree plantings to be used. The background to this area was given, with the Council employing the full-time equivalent of three officers on the team, and conversations were being held with ECC about the work to be done. Funding had been offered to the Council for whips, but the costs involved in identifying planting locations, watering and care all added up to around £500 per whip planted. There were new requirements for new developments to increase canopy cover by 10% for developments over a certain size.

A Panel member asked whether the statistics for Leisure, Museum and Bereavement Services income was gross, and why only income was measured. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that these KPIs specifically related to only income.

A Panel member argued that 28 days was too lengthy for turnaround of empty residential properties, and asked whether the contractor was experiencing delays from trying to source trades operatives. The Portfolio Holder was also asked if more people could be kept on CBH’s books ‘in-house’, such as specialists in deep cleaning. The Portfolio Holder explained that the issue was more than just about people availability, but also came from material availability problems too. The Panel discussed relet times, with a comment being that the Leader of the Council had previously mentioned regulations which meant that new tenants could not be moved in whilst fixtures were broken, and had said that he would seek ways for the Council to improve, or where changes should be lobbied for, with central government. A Panel member asked for comparisons to be provided with other housing providers, and information on the lack of pre-let checks carried out by some housing associations. The Portfolio Holder agreed to seek and provide information on the numbers of empty properties.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council, underlined the pressures on housing, on contractors, materials, and in the increases in regulation since tragedies such as Grenfell, with the need for Councils to avoid maladministration cases arising from this. The Leader agreed to consider suggestions to increase the Council’s range of contractors. 

Regarding income targets, the Leader noted that these had been set in consultation with the Scrutiny Panel. The ‘Fit for the Future’ [FfF] programme would show progress made, including costs, both frontline and ‘hidden’, not just income. The Council maintained its social responsibility to provide leisure services and health and wellbeing support.

A Panel member stated that the Council had set a seven percent increase in rent charged in 2023-24, asking how it expected this to be paid. The Portfolio Holder explained that rent collection was still high, and that levels of benefits and tax credits had increased. The Leader added that the national rent cap applied to all, with the Council providing housing at social and affordable rates. This was linked to housing benefits, and help for those in need. The Council’s financial viability had to be maintained. A background paper, to give details of benefit changes, was offered, should the Scrutiny Panel wish to schedule an agenda item on this.

A Panel member said that the Council’s minimum reserves level had been set at £3m, but alleged that the Council was below that level, and asked what risks were associated with borrowing for the purpose of increasing the Council’s housing stock. The Leader gave assurance that the sum of the Council’s reserves was over and above the required level. The Finance Team had conducted a thorough review of non-earmarked funds. The £3m set was clarified as not being statutory, but a level judged to be prudent.

A suggestion was made that it would help the KPIs to be understood, if intended outcomes and impacts were listed alongside the targets, so as to show what was being sought from each target. The Leader agreed that looking at context and intended outcomes was a driver for decision making, and agreed to see what could be added to cover this, whilst noting that the intentions and outcomes behind some KPIs were clear.

A Panel member raised the missed target of households in temporary accommodation, asking if this was from a failure of administration or policy, and suggesting that other options be considered, such as housing people in prefab structures. The member accused the Council of pursuing the wrong strategy for housing people. The Leader disagreed; whilst he accepted that KPIs would never show everything, this was not the relevant place to examine the operations of CBH. The set of KPIs was to provide insight on performance relating to the aspects of its work that the Council considered to be most important.

Andrew Small, Head of Finance and Section 151 Officer, introduced the report, touching on the process for the 2024-25 Budget, which included wide consultations. The report showed the framework to build on this and consolidate, including in the draft 2025-26 Budget coming to Cabinet by November 2024, months earlier in the process than in past years. The Housing Revenue Account, General Fund and balance sheet contexts were outlined, alongside the Treasury Management Strategy Statement.

The Head of Finance was asked how the ‘Fit for the Future’ Programme was catered for in the framework, and confirmed that this was one of the key information areas required in order to generate the Budget. This would come via Governance and Audit Committee, potentially Scrutiny Panel discussions, and forecast project returns, to build into the Budget planning documents.

The Head of Finance was asked if assurances were in place regarding the level of reserves needed to mitigate risks around borrowing. It was explained to the Panel that this report only set out the timetable for budget-setting processes. The specific queries about work were all things which had to be done within the process for Budget preparation, and assurances would be laid out in that process. The next report would be on the Medium-Term Financial Forecast assumptions, used to generate the Budget. This would include details. Consideration of reserves was part of the year-end process, with the outcome of 2023-24 being determined now, to give a starting point for the 2025-26 Budget, alongside economic data.

The earlier opportunity for Scrutiny of the draft Budget was welcomed, alongside the five-year schedule.

Matt Sterling, Head of Economic Growth, gave a quick confirmation that there was now no charge for users of the bandstand in Castle Park. A booking system had been introduced to manage usage, and timing of performances.

Wider work was ongoing, around St Nicholas and Trinity Squares. Many agencies were involved, and a lack of coordination had been noted. Better coordination was now being sought, with many partners and stakeholders being brought together to see how this could be improved. It would also be important to avoid bureaucracy and difficulties in people making the most of these spaces. Work was in progress, with this report as an update and opportunity for input.

A Panel member asked if the Council held an asset list, and if assets were ranked in order of how beneficial they were. The Head of Economic Growth explained that the Council had been working on its asset list, but that this work included all public spaces, included those owned by partners. Assets were not ranked. The Council’s Regulatory Services showed that the current system set up clashes between what organisations wanted and what places were suitable to accommodate noise, accessibility, the needs of residents and other considerations. It was intended that a guide would be provided so that events could be steered towards appropriate sites. The Events Company sought business, and there was a programme to source people to provide events which had been identified as being wanted. The market was examined as to what it delivered, and what it did not.

The Head of Economic Growth explained that the Council was not yet in a position to lay out ideas for spaces such as St Nicholas Square. There would be accessible space and eateries, and usage would be mindful of the presence of a hotel building and local residents. Officers, including the Licensing Team, would assess what would be appropriate, with a general principle that the space would not be licensed for activities at events where such a license would not be granted for such activities by the permanent bars and eateries. The Council would need creative stakeholders and partners to say what could be done.

Karen Turnbull, Economic Development Officer, explained that ideas for better coordination would be tested with the Business Improvement District, Events Company, and others. A model would be developed and taken further. The Head of Economic Growth outlined short-term success as being fewer refusals of street events, and increased vibrancy. Long-term success would be increased footfall and business successes. A Panel member pushed for some kind of measurement of outcomes to be made.

Ms Amanda Gilmour, Chair of the Colchester Canoe Club, addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), to explain the activities of the Club, which included coaching in paddle sports, conducted over the course of around forty years. The Club had worked with disadvantaged people, and was seeking a place within social prescribing. Expert-level competitors in paddle sports, such as Freestyle, had been tutored. The situation at the collapsed weir had put plans on hold, and safety issues meant that the Club could not access the river, due to reduced water levels. This meant that new learners could not be taught. Ms Gilmour disclosed that the Club’s liaison officer at British Canoeing/Paddle UK had suggested that Sport England may be able to contribute towards the cost of rebuilding the weir via their grant process.

Mr Steve Waters addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), to raise issues regarding the potential option for naturalising the Colne. Mr Waters argued that such an option would require planning, set outcomes, and a team to deliver it. A brief history of the Colne was given, and the river described as ‘heavily modified’, and in need of assistance if it were to be returned to a natural condition, with issues including instability of banks, from altered hydrology. Industrial contaminants meant that there would be issues with the river’s silt, and its potential movement and dispersal. This had ramifications for the drawing of water from the Ardleigh Reservoir, and to sites of special scientific interest. Mr Waters asked the Council to give assurance that the moving of silt in the river would not affect the water sourcing and the sites of special scientific interest, and asked whether the Council was considering the option and effects of rebuilding the sluice.

The Chairman invited the Chair of the Canoe Club to describe the Club’s activities. The Club’s activities were discussed, including use of the weir flow to train people on white water and kayaking activities and moves. The current state of the Colne, around the Club’s base at the Lido, and around Castle Park, was described, along with the reasons why this prevented use by the Club, with banks now too high to permit portage. Water levels at Middleborough were now usually too low to permit usage. New and inexperienced members could no longer be taken on. The Club used to collect rubbish, and continued to do so where possible. Issues of river appearance were described. Questions were asked about naturalisation and whether the river would still be usable for paddle sports.

Fiona Shipp, Parks, Countryside & Greening Operations Manager, presented an update on the situation, with the report providing progress and consultation responses from partners, stakeholders and community groups. Known areas of future work were laid out. The Chair acknowledged frustrations with time taken, but praised the wide consultation.

A Panel member asked whether the Council had considered what sports it wished to see pursued on the Colne, and how these could be facilitated. Mel Rundle, Head of Sustainability, explained that this was the case, and was being considered as part of the Health and Wellbeing Strategy, rather than as part of the work regarding the weir situation.

Geomorphology and hydrology issues were discussed, with changes to the river having significant impact. It was queried whether the Council had expertise in this, or if it would be best to cooperate with other agencies, such as Tendring District Council, which might have more experience of such matters. The Parks, Countryside & Greening Operations Manager confirmed that the Council had taken Environmental Agency advice, and was working with a structural engineer. A Panel member asked if it would be better to seek impartial advice from another local authority, rather than rely on the Environment Agency. The Parks, Countryside & Greening Operations Manager explained that she was not aware of any local authorities with in-house expertise required by the weir situation, and that specialist advice would need to be bought in. The Panel were told that the Environment Agency no longer had the capacity to remove silt annually from UK rivers, even in places where it had previously carried this out. The Parks, Countryside & Greening Operations Manager explained that the issue was primarily the sudden release of silt which had built up behind the weir, with pollutants dispersing into the Colne, including the silt itself. The period of silt loading that followed the weir collapse had now passed, and Anglian Water would need to be kept involved and informed regarding   any potential release of  silt  when any future work was carried out.

A Panel member asked about the option for a smaller weir, and whether this would be able to be used to vary water levels, or would include a ‘sill’. A further question was asked regarding naturalising the river, and whether a sill could be used as an alternative to a new weir. The Parks, Countryside & Greening Operations Manager agreed that, were a new weir to be decided as the best option, a discussion would be needed as to what structure to construct, and what water levels would be appropriate. Environment Agency approval would be needed. A like-for-like rebuild, with a fish gate, would be costly. A smaller weir with a sluice gate would be less aesthetically pleasing, but would be a cheaper way to restore the weir function.

Panel members raised potential issues which might occur upstream, with a request made for any upstream implications of options to be set out as part of the reporting on those options in the future.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council, welcomed the conversation and discussion, and thanked all who had participated, alongside the work of the officers involved. The Leader emphasised that this was a real ‘options’ exercise, and that he expected the options to be adjusted and reviewed in light of ongoing expert input. Progress was difficult, in multi-agency situations, and especially where these involved significant regulation. The Leader promised to relay the content of the meeting’s discussions to his Cabinet colleagues, including the social impacts of the situation. Conversations had been had with Councillor Cunningham, Essex County Council’s Portfolio Holder for Highways, Infrastructure and Sustainable Transport, who wanted to assist and will be visiting the site to view the situation and environs. The Leader ventured that debates about culpability would not help resolve the situation, and urged members to look at joint remedial efforts with the County Council and other partners, along with consideration of possible ways to improve the Colne around the Middleborough bridge.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Panel’s work programme for 2024-2025 be approved.