Meeting Details

A minute’s silence was held to mark the death of Councillor Roger Mannion.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 8 October 2024 be approved as a correct record.

Mr. Alan Short addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), to claim that the Chairman of Scrutiny Panel had offered a meeting of the Panel, to discuss matters relating to the Council and Alumno.  Mr Short also made allegations regarding his belief that a letter relating to Middlewick Ranges had been withheld from Councillors, prior to approval being given to the Local Plan. Mr Short asked the Panel to look into his accusations, and claimed that the Evening Gazette had made its own allegations.

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure, responded to the comments, to rebut Mr Short’s comments. Councillor Goss noted that the Gazette had made no allegations, and that Mr Short was referring to his own letter, that had been printed in that local paper. Neither Councillor Goss nor Councillor Tim Young had supressed any correspondence. Councillor Goss noted the confusion between an early report, said to have been produced before the Local Plan, and a letter from Natural England, received after the Inspector had held his consultation on the Local Plan. The Chairman noted that the Panel had set out that it would receive a confidential briefing from the Monitoring Officer, so that the Panel could then gain information as to what it could consider in public session. The Chairman directed the Panel to move on with its business. 

Ms. Caroline White addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), to ask questions about Middlewick Ranges, and the Council’s commitment to using up-to-date evidence in the current Local Plan review, and recent ecological surveying. Ms. White raised concern about the Council’s surveying and its impartiality and asked questions as to what types of wildlife had been included in the survey brief, and about previous ecological reports received by the Council previously. The Scrutiny Panel was asked to investigate to find details of experts used by the Council, hold the biodiversity officer to account, ensure sufficient policies and experts were in place for the Local Plan review, and enquire whether the Council would reimburse members of the public who engaged in ecological surveys of their own at Middlewick. The Panel was asked how data would be presented to councillors prior to any future Local Plan decisions being made.

The Chairman stated that the Scrutiny Panel did not have power to ask some of the questions put to it, but would seek answers from the Portfolio Holder in attendance. 

Mr. Martin Pugh addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), to accuse the Council of making decisions driven by the influence of Planning Officers, and of not sticking to due process. Mr. Pugh accused the Council of predetermination, regarding the Local Plan, and of ignoring its legal duties. Mr. Pugh made further allegations about documents being withheld from councillors, and accused officers of dishonesty. Mr. Pugh urged councillors to ignore due process and to arbitrarily remove Middlewick from the Local Plan.

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability, stated that it was not for her to decide how the Panel should proceed on this matter. A new independent consultant had been engaged to replace and override the original Stantec report. This would not cover all species, as that would be impossible and too costly. The Council did not have in-house ecological expertise, and it was unusual for any council to have this, as such work was usually carried out by developers. The amount of data gathered on Middlewick had been exceptional, compared to other sites, but the Council was always open to more data. The Government Inspector for Section Two of the Local Plan had been responsible for scrutinising the original Stantec report, inviting other organisations to contradict it at the time, with serious revisions to the Local Plan being made at that time. The Stantec report was not being relied upon by the Council in its current considerations.

The Portfolio Holder noted that any decisions on placing new housing would see planning bias, as only planners could set out the Local Plan. This was not optional, and was a legal requirement. Accusations made against unnamed individuals could not be commented upon, with the Portfolio Holder advising that Mr. Pugh should either give details, or retract his allegations.

Much internal and external evidence was being examined, and would be provided to the Local Plan Committee for the Local Plan review. Mr. Pugh argued that the Government Inspector had not been an expert, and had ignored the advice of certain groups, and that the Council was failing to apply a mitigation hierarchy.

Ms. Rachel Mathews addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), to criticise the Council’s declared Climate Emergency, and press the Council to stop investing in carbon reduction measures. Ms. Mathews accused Climate Change scientists of being fearmongers, and the Council of refusing to disregard its meeting procedure rules, which prohibited members of the public attending meetings online. Ms. Mathews urged councillors to reconsider the Council’s approach towards climate change, and alleged that the Council was close to bankruptcy and being close to being guilty of financial mismanagement of public funds.

The Chairman accused the Government of damaging the countryside, and noted that advisors could be appointed to assist the Panel, but that this required the approval of the Panel.

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability, briefed the Panel on work within her remit, stating that the Portfolio Holder did not have much influence, but could seek details. Building control work was described, along with work conducted on the North Essex Growth Plan. This was not optional, but had been directed by Government.

Regarding the Local Plan, the Portfolio Holder was not briefed on Local Plan Committee work, which had decision-making powers and therefore received more information. Member briefings were ongoing. Middlewick was often discussed, due to public interest. An Article Four Direction had been put in place for Pennsylvania Lane, Tiptree, and another covering North Station Road in Colchester. Officers would be able to brief members on the details.

The Great Bentley Neighbourhood Plan had been adopted, and the Inspector’s new town consultation had closed. The findings on the garden community would be provided to the Council and Tendring District Council next year, to seek approval. More detail would be given in briefing documents.

The Portfolio Holder received an overview on planning matters, including the more complex applications received. This gave a picture of problems being encountered, and how the Council acted to solve them, including enforcement actions and success rates.

The Portfolio Holder covered City planning areas, such as the planned work at St. Botolph’s, and the progressing of finding a site for a new bus station. The Panel was informed that the Portfolio Holder was not privy to all elements of the scheme, but had been given information from the County Council, such as on cycle routes, active travel projects and the like. The ‘Fixing the Link’ project [between the main railway station and City centre] was another place where access to active travel was needed, including secure cycle storage, e-cargo service and car clubs.

Recruitment issues were being experienced, with difficulties in finding qualified planners being experienced nationally. Understaffing was now common for local authorities.

The Portfolio Holder described a new app that was soon to launch, and which would allow the public to give their views on projects. This would be simple to use and give an option for people to suggest new ideas.

Planned work for the A12 was covered. The Portfolio Holder expressed nervousness as to whether the funding was secure, but assumed that it was.

Government proposals for pylons and plans not to consider offshore wind energy production were mentioned. The Council officer tasked with focusing on mitigation measures and options was working with local parish councils on this. The Secretary of State had powers to pursue whatever approach they wished to.

The Chairman raised flooding issues, in regard to the current ‘Call for sites’ underway, in relation to the Local Plan. Past unsuccessful attempts to build on flood plains around the Colne had been resisted, and the Chairman suggested that a supplementary planning document [SPD] was needed to set out the Council’s approach to flood plains and development. The Portfolio Holder gave assurances that this was ‘on the radar’. Wivenhoe had a coastal protection belt, including flood plains. Balance had to be found, with sites having to satisfy conditions, regarding floodplains, in order to be considered suitable. Officers continued to work through the site evaluations. There were certain criteria which would cause sites to be vetoed immediately. Building on floodplains could lead to a range of problems, such as uninsurable properties. The County Council maintained a map of residencies falling into problem areas, for the purposes of issuing subsidies. This map was described as being worrying in its content.

The Portfolio Holder was asked how agile the Council could be, in the event of windfall sites being found. An example of this was the condemned car park on North Station Road. The Portfolio Holder explained that a view could be taken on planning matters, but that the buying of sites was not allowed. From experience of City centre sites becoming available, the Council was keen to take these on, but the question was whether it could afford to develop on them.

A Panel member stated that it was within the gift of the Portfolio Holder to issue a briefing note, covering the Middlewick Ranges situation, documentation questions raised by members of the public, and details as to who saw what information at which times. It was suggested that this could clarify and resolve what had happened. The Portfolio Holder agreed to ask officers to look into this, noting that the two ecology reports, from Stantec and Peter Brett Associates [PBA], predated her membership of the Council. Sandra Scott, Place Strategy Manager, had investigated and found a copy marked of the PBA report had been received by the Council, marked ‘confidential’, which meant that officers could not circulate it, as it was a third-party document. The Portfolio Holder was happy to investigate as to who had seen this report. It was her understanding that this had not been circulated to councillors, with the Portfolio Holder stating she had seen the report only because a member of the public had sent a copy to her.

Questions were asked as to the ‘Fixing the Link’ project and its goals, future work, and measures for success. A Panel member stated that a number of businesses had complained that the Council did not give the area [around North Station Road] sufficient attention. The Portfolio Holder explained that she had walked the area with officers in the past month, and a briefing would be given soon. There was a perception of a disconnect between the yellow signs and elephant installations. The sculpture planned for the roundabout had been scrapped, due to cost, and planting carried out instead. Signage improvements were planned, and a refurbishment of the bridge railings needed. Essex County Council maintained that this must be carried out by them, as they were the owners of the structure, but had taken no action thus far. Talks were ongoing with the County Council over this. Planters needed more care, weeds needed dealing with, and rubbish bags were being left out by residents in flats of the area. Plans were live and ongoing.

The Chairman described the situation at Middle Mill Weir, where the drop in water level meant that water craft could no longer be used there. Some support was noted for the idea of re-naturalising the area, with faster flow of water upstream. A question remained as to whether to replace the weir or to commit to re-naturalisation. The Portfolio Holder stated that she was not aware of the impacts of potential options. Problems experienced at Ferry Marsh, Wivenhoe, had led to a change in the local ecology. A conversation could be had, but experts would need to be involved.

A presentation was delivered by Simon Davison, Sustainability & Climate Change Manager, giving a summary of the background to the work on responding to the declared climate emergency, the Council’s achievements, interventions, costs incurred, barriers to change and feasibility of potential future actions. The policy background of the Paris Agreement was laid out, enacted in UK law with a commitment to act to reduce climate change. This led to effects on local authorities, including in planning, Local Plans, waste strategies and estate strategies.

The Climate Action Plan was live and refreshed, reflecting the Council’s Strategic Plan, and feeding into key strategies. All Council decisions now had to consider sustainability implications.

The heat network at the Northern Gateway site was described, with a second possible network under exploration with the University of Essex. There was a range of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including an increase in electric power usage, and more sustainable use of power across the Council’s estate. The Council had however only achieved a 13.8% reduction in Carbon Dioxide [CO2] since December 2019, and was not on course to meet its target.

The cost of possible decarbonisation plans for the Castle, Town Hall and museum properties was covered. A £15m retrofit of these buildings would reduce emissions, but was projected to incur a £400k revenue cost per year, if carried out. Air source heat pumps were not recommended for historic buildings.

Fleet strategy options would lead to 90% of the reduction in emissions that was necessary for the Council’s target to be met.

Barriers to progress had included the Covid pandemic, the financial environment in the UK and the state of local government finance. Feasibility projections were informed by a good understanding of the source of emissions. 48% came from use of gas, 25% from the Council’s fleet, and 18% from electricity usage. There were decarbonisation opportunities from heat pump use, but this depended on each building, with some which may better suit alternative options that would be more efficient. There was a new revised Government target for net zero by 2030. Options for local electricity generation were being examined. Value for money and the best outcomes were being sought. Offsetting was to be considered, once emission reduction measures had all been considered.

Much had been achieved via the Action Plan, even in the face of challenges that had arisen since the declaration of a Climate Emergency. The Council faced significant budgetary challenges. GB Energy might provide extra funding to decarbonise, encourage local electricity generation and develop community-based energy assets.

The Council was conducting an assessment of its estate and needs, which was in the planning phase. Care would be taken to adopt the most practical and affordable options. The Council would then be in a better place to set out an emission reduction strategy, to transit towards a future low-carbon economy.

The Chairman noted the large amount of work that had gone into the activities described. A Panel member asked for more details about the opportunities, benefits, new jobs and apprenticeships that might come from heat networks. The Sustainability & Climate Change Manager explained that consultation on heat network zoning had been carried out following the Energy Act 2023. Secondary legislation was expected by the end of 2025. This would provide opportunities for local authorities to develop heat networks, potentially in partnership with other organisations. In Colchester, development of the Northern Gateway heat network would involve a procurement process, seeking to lead to the network being able to supply residents and commercial premises on that site. 

Work was about to commence with Essex County Council and the University of Essex to produce a feasibility study on a second heat network. This would start in the following week, and was expected to report in April 2025. Heat network mapping included the City centre and could potentially provide low-carbon energy to the centre and surrounding area. The Portfolio Holder added that the Government was looking to zone and roll out heat networks nationally. There was some resistance, mainly from developers, as this involved new technology and large capital investment. There would be jobs in supplying infrastructure, mainly in the private sector. The Council would likely be part of any zoning body. The Portfolio Holder expressed admiration for the plans, but cautioned that, were they to depend on private investment, this might not materialise if private enterprises did not think it was worth it. The Panel was informed that, were heat networks to be introduced, all in the area would be forced to buy their energy from that provider. The Council could potentially use energy generated from a University heat network, and supply it to Greenstead. The Council did not have the necessary capital, and therefore would need private capital.

A Panel member queried the situation, including the situation regarding Colchester Amphora Energy Ltd, and asked for details as to how heat networks would work in the UK, where geothermal sources were not so accessible as in places such as Iceland. The Portfolio Holder explained that heat networks could be powered from a range of sources. Fossil fuel could be initially used for some, but could be replaced by renewables in time. Amphora Energy had been put into dormancy, with some cost involved. The scale of this cost was not yet known. The Sustainability & Climate Change Manager underlined that the heat network at Northern Gateway had never been operational, with the commercial basis not fully realised, but the situation had moved on. The original plan was for a water-source heat pump, from the chalk aquifer, but technology had advanced, and the Council was now looking at a fifth generation heat network, designed to be low carbon technology. Assurance was given that heat networks would work well. 

The Sustainability & Climate Change Manager was asked whether greater reductions in CO2 were now expected, or if the Council had been too ambitious as to what it could do, especially given the number of old buildings in the estate. Questions were asked as to the Council’s use of the Town Hall, and the Council’s prioritising of energy reduction over other matters. The Sustainability & Climate Change Manager stated that the target set was not necessarily hard to meet, but the problem was that investment was needed. Without external funding, the Council would struggle to meet its target. There was a misconception that that adoption of measures would lead to a net cost, whereas cost neutrality or savings could be achieved. It would, however, be hard to achieve that before 2030. Any heat network for the City centre, covering the Town Hall and Castle, would take at least eight years to bring to fruition.

The Panel asked if a drop in emissions was expected from Rowan House and Leisure World. The Sustainability & Climate Change Manager noted that limited interventions had been carried out, as the sites were currently within an options appraisal. Time was needed to evaluate how to achieve maximum value for money and returns on investment. Negligible impacts had been caused thus far. The Portfolio Holder added that interventions at Leisure World involved external grant funding. This included looking at the use of smart meters. This would be impacted by political decisions, outside this policy area. That included questions as to whether sites are sold, or provision of services (such as leisure options) changes. 

The Sustainability & Climate Change Manager cautioned that an ‘open chequebook’ approach could lead to bad decisions being made. Leisure World was complex, with a combined heat and power system, using gas to produce electricity. The price of this was 7.5p per kWh. If electricity were to be imported for use, this would cost 28p per kWh. This needed consideration when the Council appraised how to proceed. The Council had instead focussed on actions which would involve a swift recouping of costs incurred.

A Panel member underlined the decision at Full Council to declare a Climate Emergency, and a target of carbon neutrality by 2030. Concern was voiced that the report on this showed that meeting the target would not be possible, and an accusation made that the Climate Emergency resolution was being ignored, as it was not being supported in current budgets and projects. The Panel member raised concern that what was being discussed did not seem to be considered as an emergency, and queried whether Council should reconsider whether it considered the situation to be an emergency, or instead a case of sensible moves and ways being engaged to deal with the problem. The Panel member laid out the three strategies that he saw possible. The first was ‘business as usual’, reducing CO2 output as and when it was possible to do so in line with budgets. The second was to accelerate progress, acting swiftly on sites like Leisure World, and in fleet transition, requiring much thought of technological options. The final option was to do nothing in the short term. The Panel member argued that the Council had adopted the first strategy, and argued that it was wrong to have a ‘Climate Emergency’ declared, and the Full Council should reconsider whether a 2030 target for carbon neutrality was appropriate.

The Sustainability & Climate Change Manager pointed out that the Council could still consider there to be a climate emergency but realign target dates to better match new national targets. Panel comments urged the importance of ensuring that Council assets were fit for the modern age, whilst being affordable. A Panel member noted the time lost to Covid, and argued that the Council shouldn’t aim for a target that would bankrupt it.

Councillor McCarthy explained that, as Chair of the Environment and Sustainability Panel, he had wished to get an understanding of Scrutiny Panel’s thinking. His Panel had moved from six meetings per year, down to just three. A Panel member suggested that the Council could raise tax in order to pay for any work to mitigate a perceived emergency, suggesting that residents be asked to provide more money, and that this should be done before seeking external funds from other sources. The Portfolio Holder pointed out that such an action would require a local referendum which would, itself, cost money.

The Chairman then directed that a statement submitted by Councillor Dundas be read out, explaining that he had held this back so that it did not influence the Panel’s discussions. Councillor Dundas’ statement argued that it was important that the Council did what it could to minimise its pollution and emissions, but that the Council should not put itself into financial difficulty to pursue costly measures that were not likely to significantly lower emissions. Changes in technology, and other factors, meant that the Council should lead to regular reconsiderations and the avoidance of rigid views. Doubt was expressed as to how the Council would decarbonise by 2030. Doubt was also expressed as to the Government’s intention to encourage local authority involvement in local energy generation, citing past failures in such projects. Councillor Dundas suggested that any Panel recommendation should include considerations of practicality regarding any emission reduction options, an insistence on adapting to new technologies, an acceptance that progress much depends on factors outside of Council control, and that the Council should be cautious about any involvement in energy generation schemes.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council, summarised that the report captured a sense of what the Council could and couldn’t do. It was recognised that the Council played a small part in reducing emissions, but that this was still important. Important factors included future asset works, and that more guidance from Government was expected in the coming 12 months.

SCRUTINY PANEL notes that the definition of the word ‘emergency’ dictates that the Council faces missing its own self-imposed objective unless significant capital budgets are identified to assist with carbon reduction schemes.
 
RECOMMENDED to CABINET that, should Cabinet be unable to achieve the Council’s Climate Emergency objective, it should consider reconsulting with Full Council to ascertain if the will of Council is to consider this an ‘emergency’, as opposed to managing opportunities to reduce carbon and improve our environment and public realm within existing budgetary framework and business plans.

Chris Hartgrove, Deputy Section 151 Officer, gave an introduction, setting the context of the Capital Programme. The Council’s Capital Programme had been in development over the past few years, and had been extended to bring it in line with the five-year Medium Term Financial Forecast [MTFF]. Significant inroads had been made, during the development of the 2024-25 Budget, but there was more work still to do. There were Capital Programme allocations for fleet spending in 2024-25, 2025-26 and possibly 2026-27, but no allocation after that, for the fourth or fifth year, which was considered unrealistic.

The Deputy Section 151 Officer noted that the Council was always intending to replace its vehicles when they reached their end of life, and that the Capital Programme would always include a five-year fleet strategy. The cost of this was separate to the financial implications of the new Recycling and Waste Strategy, which had included the projected £728k revenue cost savings, but not the capital financing cost of fleet replacement.

Regarding the financing model, a Panel member stated he was supportive of climate action, but believed that the Council had taken decisions that did not reflect it in the Capital Programme. By a decision of the Council, the target of fleet carbon neutrality by 2030 had been set, but this had not been incorporated into this item, or the finance model. It was noted that the proposal included the buying of refuse collection vehicles [RCVs] by 2026, with a seven-year life. The view was given that this would mean their lifespan would go on past 2030, some lasting until 2033 and others until 2034; four years after the proposed deadline for achieving carbon neutrality. Such vehicles would, at that point, not be road legal and would have no value, needing to be written off early. This would have an effect on the Capital Programme, especially in 2029-30. The Deputy Section 151 Officer was asked how this would be dealt with in the Capital Programme.

The Chairman asked Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure, if he wished to address the Panel. The Portfolio Holder emphasised that the finance model, fleet, purchases and collection model could only be based on what is currently known, and that future Government policy couldn’t be guessed. This affected all councils’ services and budgets, with a workstream on this being led by Councillor Bentley, Leader of Essex County Council, in regard to local government reorganisation, and a potential decrease in the number of local authorities in the future.

Surprise was expressed by one member of the Panel that, in his view, the Climate Emergency Declaration was being ignored. The view was given that a decision by Full Council should bind Cabinet, and could not be ignored. Councillor King, Leader of the Council, posited that the Council was a long way from knowing what national rules on scrappage would be, being some years from a national approach being ready. Some grace was needed as to how to proceed, but Cabinet accepted the need to be practical as to how to go ahead. The Leader’s view was that devolution would not have a significant effect.

The Chairman noted that a Council motion in 2019 called for the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State to urge policy be developed to address the climate emergency, and release funds to local government to allow councils to address this.

Robert Doran, Fleet and Depot Manager, laid out that the Panel was asked to scrutinise the Cabinet report, prior to it going to Cabinet. The aims and objectives within the report were laid out, which would enable the Council to plan responsibly.

The Panel raised issues around frequency of road sweeper breakdowns. The Fleet and Depot Manager explained that the Portfolio Holder had asked for a strategy on street sweepers. A truck-mounted sweeper had been purchased, leading to more sweeping. There was a national issue with road sweeper breakdowns, and a difficulty in obtaining parts. The Council was seeking to replace three old sweepers with two new truck-mounted sweepers. To add to these, the Council was trialling other, smaller sweepers to compare. Priority was being given to operatives’ opinions on what option to choose.

The Chairman asked about the cost implication of increasing energy infrastructure to power electric vehicles [EVs] such as road sweepers. The Fleet and Depot Manager laid out the consideration going into infrastructure issues. This would require a new substation to be constructed, if the Council were to move to an electric vehicle fleet. The cost implication would be £400k, even before the cost of charging was considered. The Chairman posited that there would likely be a long list of works already planned by UK Power Networks.

A Panel member asked for information as to how much of the revenue savings of £728k [from the Recycling and Waste Strategy] would come from fleet upgrades, stating that he had spoken with the Head of Neighbourhood Services and did not understand where this was to be found. The Deputy Section 151 Officer emphasised that that Strategy was primarily expecting to generate savings in staffing costs. Lucie Breadman, Strategic Director, elaborated that there was a planned reduction in staffing of a 22%reduction in FTE positions. This accounted for the majority of the expected savings. There was an element of savings on fleet revenue cost included, but what was being discussed in the item under consideration here was the capital element of fleet replacement. Officers could look to see what further detail could be given. Amounts given were, by necessity, estimations. Figures would be set and then service areas challenged to find the ways to achieve the savings identified as being necessary.

A Panel member stated his belief in the Climate Emergency Declaration, and that the Prime Minister was firm on a 2030 date for meeting the carbon reduction target in place. A study carried out, indicating that an additional 500kWh headroom and smart chargers were needed, was raised. Without smart chargers, the additional headroom needed would be 900kWh. Officers were asked if there were any guarantees that the necessary electricity infrastructure would be in place by 2030.

The Strategic Director explained that the Council did not yet know if EVs would be purchased. There would be significant risk in spending £400k on a new substation at this point, without knowledge of the future. A current EV was tested, but found to be unsuitable for waste collection. Issues were at play regarding new burdens on the Council, and uncertainty over funding. Smaller Council vehicles had already been exchanged for EV alternatives, and a framework had been put in place for potential transition, but not all questions had been answered. The Council would look at what was available, what was needed, costs, government expectations and burdens in place. It was considered likely that a national-level deal with UK Power Networks would be needed.

RECOMMENDED to CABINET that, whilst the Scrutiny Panel supports the Five-year Fleet Strategy, the Panel expects Cabinet to be mindful of the outlook for after 2030, given the Climate Emergency deadline of fleet carbon neutrality by 2030, the implications of new technology and potential savings, which should be tracked and reported back.

It was confirmed that a confidential briefing for Scrutiny Panel members was being sought in January 2025.

RESOLVED that the SCRUTINY PANEL approves its work programme for 2024-25.