Meeting Details

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2024 be approved as a correct record.

Mr Lance Peatling addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), to allege that he had been told that the Council was prepared to harm residents, if it had been granted the legal power to do so. Mr Peatling compared the Council to ‘Nuremburg’, asking if councillors condoned this view, but declined requests to clarify to what he was referring, stating that he was speaking in general, and not about any specific matter. 

The Panel attempted to gain clarification about what the allegations were, but were not given such clarification. Mr Peatling stated that he was not accusing the Council of doing wilful harm to people, and gave no evidence of harm being committed, but mentioned he had a presentation on the matter. The Chairman offered to circulate this to the Panel, if provided to him.

Mr Richard Martin addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), to ask the Panel to scrutinise the process behind setting the current Local Plan, raising his concerns that the process had not correctly considered the original ecology report on Middlewick Range carried out by Peter Brett Associates, and that the subsequent report by Stantec had miscategorised and downgraded the biodiversity value of the acid grassland. Mr Martin stated that the Planning Department had been sent the original report.

The Chairman asked Mr Martin to provide the relevant maps and information to the Leader of the Council, whom he asked to discuss this matter with the Portfolio Holder, Councillor Luxford-Vaughan, and provide a written response.

Mr Alan Short addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), to complain that an investigation had yet to be held into the Council’s negotiations with Alumno, regarding the development of land next to FirstSite, and to ask whose advice had delayed an investigation from being carried out. Mr Short alleged that advice was being given by people who were materially involved in the matter, and that negotiations had not been carried out in line with Cabinet expectations. Mr Short also alleged that a letter from Natural England, on Middlewick Range, had been withheld from Councillors prior to their approving of the Local Plan, and then categorised as ‘inconsequential’ by the Portfolio Holder.

The Chairman suggested that the Scrutiny Panel direct that it received a confidential briefing on the Alumno situation, to be carried out by the Monitoring Officer. The Chairman stated that this could potentially lead to a task and finish group being formed to examine the processes and concerns relating to the Council’s relationship with Alumno, reporting back to the Scrutiny Panel. The Chairman further requested that the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability provide a written response regarding the issues raised relating to Middlewick.

Mr Ken Walker addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), to speak on the draft recycling and waste strategy under consideration. Mr Walker applauded the Council’s process to introduce pilot schemes, and urged the Council to pick rural and urban pilots in areas with high footfall, rather than in places that would be more likely to give results that fitted what was intended by the strategy’s authors. Mr Walker cautioned that he could not understand the case made for making savings on costs, noting that decisions could not be made if the details were not understood. The Chairman committed to tackling the points raised, when the Panel discussed the draft strategy later in the meeting.

Councillor Paul Smith, Portfolio Holder for Housing, set out details of work within his remit that he personally had carried out, and the background within the housing sector. There was now increased regulation on social housing, including to drive up standards and to ensure that environmental requirements were met. Where sine complaints had alleged a lack of empathy, this was being addressed with additional training. The financial implication of complaints going to the Ombudsman’s Office were significant. Where rulings against the Council were marginal, the approach would be to seek to be more generous in the future, to avoid costs from Ombudsman complaints. Many costs had gone up over time, including an £80k cost of contributions towards the Ombudsman’s Office.

The Council was now liable for inspections. The most recent inspection of Colchester Borough Homes [CBH] showed that it was one of the better housing management organisations. Social housing in Colchester faced financial viability issues, as the sector had suffered greatly, especially from rent capping of past years, where rents would have risen by around five or six percentage points, if they had not been capped by Government. This had hit all providers.

The Council had been charging rent at social rent levels, which were at 50% of market rate, and this was not close to meeting the cost of servicing debt associated with the Council’s stock. With the agreement of the shadow portfolio holders for housing, the Portfolio Holder had moved to change to charging affordable rental rates, which were 70% of the market rate. This was capped for residents depending on housing benefits, and would only be applied to new properties which were bought or built by the Council. Properties which had been bought under ‘Right to Buy’, and which had been bought back by the Council, would be rented at the affordable rate.

The Council’s viability model had been reviewed, with the concern that the Council’s stock included many properties where repair costs outweighed the rent produced by them. The easiest option would be to sell those properties and buy new ones, but this would mean tenant evictions, who would need rehousing elsewhere. This was not what the Council wanted. Uneconomical properties would be identified, with some having already been identified and disposed of, when they had become vacant.

There were 401 households currently in temporary accommodation, with many in ‘bed and breakfast’. Members had spoken of the poor quality of some temporary accommodation, but there was insufficient temporary accommodation in the area, so some households had to be put into accommodation elsewhere, including in mobile homes in Tendring. This was difficult for families, including those needing to get to work and get children to their schools. The decision had been taken to look at leasing former student accommodation within the Colchester area, to seek an end to the need to seek places outside the area. The Portfolio Holder paid tribute to Council and CBH officers for their work on this.

The Portfolio Holder was asked what capacity was in the former student accommodation, answering that it would be able to accommodate up to 400 people.

A Panel member argued for housing being one of the top Strategic Plan and financial priorities, and recognition that other projects were not as important as delivering housing. The Portfolio Holder clarified that he hadn’t lacked support, from either Cabinet colleagues or shadow portfolio holders. The support was appreciated, and the Portfolio Holder noted that the financial requirements should be in place, but new housing was needed quickly. Money, resources, time and attention were key and would be shown in the Budget process. The Portfolio Holder was asked why there was a constant need for additional temporary housing, given the amount of residential development around Colchester. The Leader of the Council agreed that clarity on priorities was important, with housing receiving full importance and, along with growth, were reflected as priorities of the Administration. Issues were significant, and the Council needed to increase accommodation at pace.

A Panel member argued that councillors had a responsibility to support increasing the housing built. Much was being built, but not at the level needed, with around 30% being affordable units. A request was made for the number or percentage of Council properties with high maintenance costs, and details of best practice gained from working with Suffolk councils. The Portfolio Holder stated that 1,500 properties had been counted as having high maintenance costs in the past year, but included some where new kitchen units or other costly renovations had been carried out as one-off costs. Many social housing providers were not taking up affordable or social housing units in new developments due to affordability issues. The Council acted to buy such properties where possible, to bring them into the social housing sector. The Council was fully signed up to the results of the work with Suffolk, which identified problems around ‘Right to Buy.’ There was currently an average wait of three and a half years for households in bands A and B to be allocated a three-bedroom property. One recent property attracted 450 bids.

The Panel highlighted the updated system on viability assessments for now housing, relating to the Housing Revenue Account [HRA]. The Portfolio Holder informed the Panel that the system was working well. Concern had been raised previously by some members at the assumption of rental increases by CPI [Consumer Price Index] plus 0.5%, but the Government had now indicated that it would allow increases of up to CPI plus 1%. The model worked to ensure the Council only took on properties that would contribute income to the HRA, and only paid fair prices. Good support and grant funding was gained from Homes England.

The Panel discussed the potential for use of modular accommodation, and confirmation was requested that the Council was considering modular housing options. The Portfolio Holder was asked to explain how former student accommodation could be suitable as temporary accommodation for families, and why modular housing had been ruled out as unsuitable, due to being single-person units, whilst student accommodation was also usually for single people. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that much research had been done on modular options, including quick-build multiple units and examples in London. It was found that, once planning had been carried out, and utilities connected, any development of under 60 units would be more costly than alternative options. There were also risks relating to the potential for the companies, supplying the modules, to go into receivership. The Portfolio Holder agreed to share the report on the modular accommodation options with the members of the Panel. The former student housing included three-bed houses with shared bathrooms, which would work well for families. Other units were best suited for single occupancy, and there were options for fitting bunk beds, to accommodate two children in one bedroom. Councillor Rippingale, as Labour Shadow Portfolio Holder, had visited and tested the facilities to gain assurance that they would suit families.

The Panel asked what measures were available to ensure that temporary accommodation met acceptable standards. The Portfolio Holder explained that the Council did its best to maintain standards, but quality accommodation could not always be guaranteed, especially when households presented themselves at short notice. Taking on former student accommodation would help to ensure decent standard temporary accommodation was available. 

A visiting Councillor was invited to speak by the Chairman, and raised concerns regarding the use of Sea Trade House [North Station Road] to accommodate people from places including London and Birmingham, with a concentration of vulnerable people in one location. The Portfolio Holder was asked if the Council would distribute temporary accommodation across Colchester and whether the Council received funds from other local authorities to house people from their areas.

The Portfolio Holder clarified that there were some measures in place to stop new affordable housing being bought up by London local authorities, however there was nothing to stop other local authorities from buying properties in the area and allocating their residents here. This affected Colchester and Tendring, and the Panel were urged to take this up with the relevant local Members of Parliament, as it was a matter for Central Government. The concentration of residents from other areas was a result of the location of hotels. It was likely that, should the use of former student accommodation create vacancies in B&Bs and hotels, these would be taken up by other local authorities. Other local authorities should inform the Council if sending people here for accommodation, but this did not always happen. In answer to questions, the Portfolio Holder explained that there was no statutory requirement for this notification to be given, except potentially where individuals had specific needs. Essex County Council would also have an interest in this information. Lobbying of ministers had been carried out at the launch of the LGA’s [Local Government Association] Southwark Initiative.

The Panel discussed whether Council Tax could be raised for secondary properties. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that Council Tax on vacant properties was already higher. The problems caused by vacant properties were outlined, including making it harder for locals in rural communities to find housing in their areas.

Councillor Sunnucks attended and, with the Chairman’s agreement, addressed the Panel to state his view that the Council was using the funds in its HRA [Housing Revenue Account] to solve social housing problems that it couldn’t afford to tackle, whilst there were other providers of social housing in the area. Councillor Sunnucks complained about the HRA review being pushed back to Spring 2025, asking how the Budget could be constructed without it. Councillor Sunnucks reiterated his disagreement with the viability assumptions, especially regarding interest rates, and urged the Panel to seek detailed figures before the capital budget process was carried out.

Councillor Smith, Portfolio Holder for Housing, highlighted the effect that the General Election and change of Government had had on the timescale for the review. If a new HRA plan were to be produced now, the Autumn Budget might render it obsolete. The Council would need to work with other housing providers, but it was not known what the Government’s plans for housing were, except wanting more building each year. Something would be needed, to spur this increase in new properties. If the national Budget meant that small tweaks were needed, then these might be able to be incorporated in the Council’s 2025-26 Budget. If significant changes were laid out, it was unlikely that these would be reflected in the Council’s Budget for 2025-26.

A Panel member argued that the current rules were known, and that the Council should set out a position based on them now, creating a Budget now but then changing it if the Government’s budget necessitated changes. Philip Sullivan, Chief Executive Officer of Colchester Borough Homes (CBH), explained that the Council’s HRA and Budget depended on the UK Budget. Work was being done now, but not all details were available at this point. The data collection work being carried out by Savills was ongoing. It was expected that there would be a rent settlement announced on 30 October, which might be very different to the assumptions currently set. Other changes may also have significant effects.

Capital investment was being spent prudently. Development assumptions had been revised twice in recent months to be more prudent. Capital investment was increasing quality, with only 0.25% of housing stock not meeting decency standards. This was the lowest percentage on record.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council, spoke of the complexity and caution within the Council’s approach. The approach to the Budget would reflect what the Council knew, and would be tested. If there was uncertainty, caution in long-term borrowing assumptions would be increased. Assumptions were made as to borrowing required in 2025-26, with detail to be added when possible. Interim updates would be provided when this was possible.

Councillor Sunnucks accused the Council of not spending all available funds, whilst homelessness was rising, and recommended that housing be deregulated and more done to involve the private sector. Councillor Sunnucks argued that an interim report should be possible before Christmas.

The Chief Executive of CBH laid out that the 700 properties that negatively impacted the HRA was out of around 6,000 properties in total. This number could reduce, depending on future changes. Savills was now working in detail of the review of existing stock. All HRA work was proceeding well, including stock maintenance and revenue maximisation. The Council would lay out where the HRA Review informed the Budgets for 2025-26 and 2026-27. It was noted that, in 4.10 of the report, the reference to March 2024 should instead be to March 2025.

Comment was made by the Panel that it would be good to receive the additional information, including relating to work to achieve net zero carbon emissions and insulated homes. Limiting factors, such as the number of boiler mechanics, were discussed. The Portfolio Holder informed the Panel that the Council had funds to tackle the least energy efficient properties in its stock, consisting of 90 properties over 17 wards. There was no older Council stock in Highwoods, whilst rural wards often had older properties with limited heating.

The finance of Council housing was discussed, with the Council described as a landlord in the report, and as pushing for an increase in rental levels of above the CPI rate. A Panel member cautioned that all rent increases reduced the money held by tenants, except where housing benefits covered the full cost of rent. The Chief Executive of CBH detailed the rental rates charged by the Council were around 40% of the level of private rental rates. Properties needed to be maintained, updated and to meet regulatory requirements. Tenants were involved in the HRA Review, in workshops and consultation. The Council was asking for a reset of the rental statement from 2012. If this was agreed to, the Council could afford to maintain housing quality and purchase more.

RESOLVED that SCRUTINY PANEL receive an interim update on the Housing Revenue Account Review, to be provided prior to Christmas 2024.

The Chairman welcomed the general consultation and proper trialling, including in rural areas. This was in contrast to local authorities such as Babergh, where collections were reduced without consultation. Councillor King, Leader of the Council agreed with the importance of listening. Many rounds of consultation had been conducted, including with the public. Value for money and simplification of services were important, alongside cost reduction and reduction of environmental impacts and staff injuries. The Council was mindful of likely future targets from Government, in areas such as recycling. There would be no ‘false’ pilot schemes, and clarity would be given over costings and savings. Savings were likely to meet the £1m savings target, but there was a capital cost involved.

Councillor Goacher attended and, with consent of the Chairman, addressed the Panel to ask how exceptions would work, such as in streets where constraints would make it hard or impossible to use wheelie bins. Concerns had been raised by the Castle and Roman Road Residents’ Association, where terraced streets would mean wheelie bin usage would involve crossing other residents’ frontages, or wheeling through houses. Narrow pavements and trees meant that bins could block access. It was asked how bins would get to collection trucks, in places where parking was dense. The approach to conservation areas was requested and the Panel was asked to check if the approach could be reviewed with regard to ageism and ableism, as older and less-able residents could be worried about their ability to move bins. Councillor Goacher noted that it was not feasible to have central bin repositories for all areas, and asked how exceptions would be handled, including where residents wished to use black bags instead. Questions were asked as to why blue had been chosen as the colour for the new bins, and whether this was for visibility.

Councillor Çufoglu attended and, with consent of the Chairman, addressed the Panel and described attending the recent annual general meeting of the Castle and Roman Road Residents’ Association, where it was noted that the Council had promised to carry out follow ups in areas where residents disagreed with the planned strategy. Concerns had been raised at the Association about the proposals for bins and recycling, with further consultation engagement wanted. There were issues with shared access and wheeling bins through houses to reach the kerb. Trees and uneven surfaces also caused issues, with restricted access a potential problem. High density parking also posed a problem, and storing bins at the front of properties would harm the aesthetic of streets. The Castle and Roman Road Residents’ Association was calling for an exemption for their streets, so that they could keep black bag collection.

Rosa Tanfield, Head of Neighbourhood Services, presented the strategy details in a slide show, noting that Cabinet would be asked to approve the Strategy, the Service Delivery Plan, and the Domestic Recycling and Collection Plan. The current Strategy was very out of date, and the past few years and pandemic had meant the Council needed to increase its resilience. A rundown of planned national measures and targets was given, including initiatives to reduce waste and increase recycling. 

There was a drive to roll out uniform recycling and waste options across England and Wales. The Essex Waste Partnership and its partners were producing a new Essex Waste Strategy to ensure a joined up approach. The current statistics were given for waste collection and percentages for recycling.

The current fleet complexity was described, and different vehicle types shown. Around 160 staff were employed, with roles involving much manual labour and impacts on staff health. The Local Government Pensions Committee had recommended an urgent review into simplifying the service. The relation to the ‘Fit for the Future’ programme was shown, and new vision statements and values given. 83% support for the vision had been found in consultation responses, with feedback leading to amendments. Feedback had been detailed and improvements had come from some responses.

The value for money aims were outlined, along with how these would be carried out without any extra costs to residents. Engagement and education would be important, lowering barriers to recycling, and increasing the reuse of things. Information would be published to increase residents’ abilities to repurpose or reuse items. A community-led approach was to be used, with regular communications and education as to recycling and what the materials were used for. Enforcement powers were described, but these would only be used if necessary. 

The benefits of using wheelie bins were extolled; being simple to use, improving recycling rates, being better for operatives’ health, improving street cleanliness and lowering replacement rates. The two best performing authorities, regarding recycling, used a one-bin co-mingled system for recycling. Routes which collected black bin bags required an extra operative per crew. Crew requirements would ease under the new scheme, leading to savings, efficiency, greater safety and lower levels of health issues for operatives. The scheme would comply with future legislative changes.

Examples were given by the Head of Neighbourhood Services as to the community engagement, which was aimed at increasing the visibility of new initiatives. Investment was to be made into a new position for a Recycling and Engagement Officer., to increase participation in waste reduction efforts. The Council recognised that there was some disagreement with the proposals, and some residents refusing to engage. A strategy was in place to engage with hard-to-reach residents in the future.

The Council’s fleet accounted for around 25% of its total emissions, and a strategy was in place for transitioning to zero vehicle emissions by 2030. Communities would need to be supported in order to reduce waste going to landfills. Colchester was currently about 25th best in the Country for performance, and would seek to continue to innovate and improve. This would include increased use of ‘smart’ compactor bins, partnership with Plan B [the current contractor]and incentives to increase recycling.

The two planned pilots were explained, one in a rural area and one in an urban location, and a timeline for them outlined. Councillors would be updated on these pilots regularly.

New recycling and waste policies were described. These included for bin storage, and for exception areas, where there were no front gardens or back access. Options were for standard wheelie bins, small wheelie bins, or black bag collection. Exceptions could be made for properties at the top or bottom of multiple steps. Measures to minimise unsightly effects on the street scene were mentioned, along with the proposed system’s way of allowing for collection points. Limits on household residual waste would remain unchanged. Residual ‘side’ waste [waste left next to wheelie bins] would not be collected by the Council, but ‘side’ waste for recycling would be collected, if left out in clear recycling bags. Exceptions would be in place for those householders with additional needs, including a scheme to offer assistance with putting bins out, if necessary.

The Head of Neighbourhood Services stated that there had been a £1m target for savings from the proposals, with £1.091m saving calculated but, with borrowing costs factored in, this took the savings to £0.728m. The expected savings and costs were laid out, with the main parts of savings coming from a 22% reduction in staffing needed, and a reduction in the fleet. This would be made possible by streamlining operations and building a more resilient workforce. Fixed-term staff would be used instead of agency staff whenever possible. Additional costs would be incurred from having to sort mixed recycling. Fleet changes would include moving from five different vehicle types down to three, and using one model of food waste vehicle rather than the current two in service. Caged vehicles would be replaced with a different type of vehicle.

The Panel was shown the objectives from Government, Essex County Council, and the City Council, and the timeline for achievement.

The Panel noted the differences between neighbourhoods and urged officers and the Portfolio Holder to ensure that conversations covered the specific circumstances of each area. The better use of vehicles was welcomed. The Head of Neighbourhood Services was asked to consider looking at alternatives to in-house staffing, including potentials for contracting. The Head of Neighbourhood Services agreed the importance of the fleet, which was currently rarely used at weekends. Shared use with other organisations was possible, but had been ruled out as it could lead to vehicle damage, which would make them unusable by the Council. There were many reasons to doubt the private sector’s promises on service delivery, based on past experience. The starting assumption was that the service would be carried out in house, and the rationale for this would be confirmed, in response to the Panel’s comments.

A Panel member welcomed the benefits of wheelie bin use on officer conditions and health, as well as the prevention of litter spreading from ripped black bags. The Head of Neighbourhood Services was asked if any changes which came out of running the pilot schemes might affect the savings that were achievable, whether they would be affected by holiday periods, and whether the Recycling Engagement Officer would be part of the Communications Team. A further question was asked as to what enforcement resources would be in place. 

The Head of Neighbourhood Services explained that the pilot schemes would test assumptions, communications efforts, and delivery of bins to households. No fundamental changes to estimated savings were expected, as the pilots were to be used to fine-tune the proposals. The Recycling Engagement Officer would be part of the Neighbourhoods Team, but would integrate with teams across the Council, such as Community Engagement and the Communications Team. This would ensure coherency and delivery on feedback received. Street Care and Safety Wardens would work to tackle issues such as fly tipping. The Council had enforcement powers, but education would be given first, and action then taken as a last resort. The Council was committed to the pilot timings, set to avoid summer holiday effects.

A Panel member praised the report’s coverage of technical details, but stated that the financial details were vague. The financial impact of fleet transition was not included, but must be known, if the proposals were to go to Cabinet for approval. Financial detail was needed, showing all the financial impacts, if the Panel was to be able to recommend the proposals. The modelling carried out by Ricardo Environmental Ltd [mentioned in 5.25 of the Cabinet report] was requested. A short briefing report on this was requested for consideration by Panel members, to assess it and see what assurances it provided.

The Panel considered the issues which might require exceptions to be made, and whether Local Plan Committee should consider these. The potential need for a development policy was discussed, dealing with issues such as where bins could go, and retrospective policy as to their use in the street scene. Fixed penalty notices could be enforced on people blocking the footway or not putting bins out correctly, and it was important that the Council ensured that the City’s aesthetics were not harmed.

The Head of Neighbourhood Services explained that the finance for the fleet was complex. The financial implications were not material to this strategy, as the fleet would need to be replaced anyway. The five-year fleet replacement plan would separately come before Scrutiny Panel, before it is considered by Cabinet. The details of the Ricardo modelling could be shared with Panel members, and the Head of Neighbourhood Services committed to do so. The Head of Neighbourhood Services suggested that the Panel might wish to suggest that Local Plan Committee be asked to explore the matters raised relating to the Local Plan. Chris Hartgrove, ‘Service Director (shared) – Finance’, explained that £1.1m was already in the Capital Programme for fleet replacement, but nothing in the Programme for 2027 onwards. The replacement was necessary, and would go via the Scrutiny Panel for consideration as part of future Capital Programme items. A rough estimate was requested by the Panel, giving the rough savings and costs. The ‘Service Director (shared) – Finance’ confirmed this would come with the Fleet Strategy, along with information on the capital receipts it would trigger. The Leader of the Council pledged to examine the matter and see what further information could be provided.

A Panel member voiced concern that moves to provide safer working for operatives, and to improve productivity, might increase the risk of injury to residents. The Head of Neighbourhood Services was asked if any estimate had been made of the physical impact on residents from the roll out of wheelie bins, especially to those with physical restrictions. Information was requested as to how assisted collections could be accessed.

The Head of Neighbourhood Services was asked how much income was gained from the sale of recyclable materials, and whether a report on this could be provided. The report mentioned that the Council was well placed in national performance tables, but the Essex league table was requested, along with a table to compare performance with similar local authorities. The Head of Neighbourhood Services pointed out that the league tables requested were found in Appendix A, setting out the position relating to Essex authorities, and against similar authorities across the nation. The data on sale of recyclables was commercially sensitive, but could be provided to Panel members confidentially. Assisted collections would continue to be provided, ensuring they are there for all who sign up for them. On physical risks to residents, studies had shown that the pushing and pulling of wheelie bins was less harmful than the lifting and carrying of black bag waste. Waste crews made around 80,000 collections per day, and their health needed to be protected. Poor health led to lower efficiency and higher spending on agency staff, who had poorer local knowledge.

A Panel member referred to Panel discussions held last year with Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure, about the revenue generated by recyclables. It was stated that the Portfolio Holder had said that sales were carried out under a spot trade arrangement, which the Panel member described as being volatile, as prices fluctuated. This implied that revenue was hard to forecast, and the Head of Neighbourhood Services was asked if the estimates were accurate. The information on these was requested, including differences in valuations for different quality materials. The Panel member asked if the Council should look at trading in futures, rather than under the current spot trading system.

The Head of Neighbourhood Services stated that a briefing could be provided on the trading arrangements, to explain the different contracts. All local authorities would be in a different situation, due to the Environment Act’s requirements on material collections, bottle returns etc. Fleet and staffing costs were known, so if the system can be made efficient, the fluctuations in material costs could be managed. A general idea on price range was requested by the Panel member.

A request was made for any data from local authorities regarding the benefits to staff of the proposed type of system. The Head of Neighbourhood Services explained that there was no recent data, as most authorities had already moved to using wheelie bins. In Colchester, reductions in musculoskeletal injuries had been recorded on rounds where wheelie bins had been introduced. Lucie Breadman, Strategic Director, added that NHS studies had shown that the biggest source of injuries in waste collection was from lifting.

Questions were asked relating to budgeting for contract payments, and previous discussion as to how to reduce use of agency staff and seek ways to better use employed staff. A Panel member suggested that having all employed staff, with some ‘on call’ for use if needed, would be cheaper than agency staff use. The Head of Neighbourhood Services clarified that the contract payment figure in the report, of £491k, related to sorting costs for waste, not agency staff costs. There would always be some need for agency staff, to cover short term shortages in employed staff, from sick leave and/or holidays. A Panel member suggested a resolution be made to direct that the Panel receive data on agency staffing costs. The Head of Neighbourhood Services gave assurance that the staff cost effects had been incorporated into the savings forecast, and that the cost data on permanent and agency staff could be provided.

The Panel discussed the situation when wheelie bins had been introduced in some areas in 2016, with a point being made that many who were opposed to this actually came to prefer having wheelie bins. Whilst there were places where exemptions were warranted, but the Head of Neighbourhood Services was encouraged not to pander to those who opposed wheelie bins.

RESOLVED that the SCRUTINY PANEL: -

a) Suggests that the LOCAL PLAN COMMITTEE explores the future impacts of, and retrofitting options to mitigate, the expected increase in wheelie bin use on the aesthetics of the street scene and access across the Colchester area

b) Receives a briefing note covering the Ricardo modelling, and data relating to the income gained by the Council from sale of recyclable materials.

RECOMMENDED that CABINET receives a breakdown of staffing costs, between agency costs and in-house staffing costs, when it receives the draft Recycling and Waste Strategy for approval

RESOLVED that the following items be added to the SCRUTINY PANEL’s Work Programme for 2024-25: -

a) An interim update on the Housing Revenue Account Review, to be provided prior to Christmas 2024

b) A private briefing, from the Monitoring Officer, on the situation relating to the Council’s current relationship and past negotiations with Alumno

c) A copy of a report covering the costs, benefits and issues relating to the potential for using modular housing to increase temporary accommodation capacity, to be provided by the Portfolio Holder for Housing

d) A report on the future five-year fleet strategy for the Council

e) Place Partnership Plans [for meeting on 11 February 2025]

f) New Health & Wellbeing Board for Colchester [for meeting on 11 February 2025]

g) Memorandum of Understanding with the North East Essex Health and Wellbeing Alliance [for meeting on 11 February 2025]

RESOLVED that the Work Programme be amended, to hold the Portfolio Holder Briefing [Planning, Environment and Sustainability] on 12 November 2024, and the  Portfolio Holder Briefing [Economic Growth and Transformation] on 10 December 2024.