333
Stuart Johnson addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) to express his concern that another cyclist had been injured on Colchester’s roads and to stress the health and environmental benefits of cycling, particularly for children. It was Council’s responsibility to encourage cycling and to provide the necessary safe infrastructure. He called on those Councillors who had not yet signed the Colchester Cycling Charter to do so. It was time to take action and to treat air pollution as a health emergency, to work with Essex County Council to ensure their commitment to invest in cycling was delivered and to work with Essex Police to improve the safety of Essex’s roads for cyclists. It was time deliver real change and act on manifesto promises.
Councilor Cory, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, and Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Environment and Transportation, responded and thanked Mr Johnson for his work on the Cycling Charter, which the Council supported. The Council had been successful in obtaining funding to reduce air pollution. The Council would continue to work with Essex County Council on cycling issues.
Sir Bob Russell addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) to highlight a decision of the Planning Committee in September 2014 in the immediate environment of Christopher Jolly Court. This decision had stated that no building exceeding 2 storeys in height should be built, due to the impact on the area. The Council’s proposals for an additional floor on top of Christopher Jolly Court were inconsistent with this decision and the Cabinet appeared to be compromising the independence of the Planning Committee.
Councillor Fox, Portfolio Holder for Housing, stressed the need for the Council to deliver more affordable housing. As part of this, the Council was looking at proposals for Airspace developments, whereby an additional floor was built on an existing building. No firm decision on any Airspace scheme had been made and it would be for the Planning Committee to determine any planning application that was subsequently brought forward.
Jackie White addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) to express her concerns that the Armed Forces Covenant was being used to give priority for housing to families from the Armed Forces over those with disabilities. This was a breach of the Equality Act and an example of indirect discrimination The Equality Act took precedence over the Armed Forces covenant. Whilst she had been informed that new accessible housing was being built, there was no evidence yet that this would be fully accessible. Much of the housing currently designated as accessible was in reality unsuitable. In considering housing need, welfare and medical needs needed to be considered together.
Councillor Fox, Portfolio Holder for Housing, responded and explained that there was no intention to discriminate against any group, and the Council wanted to support both armed forces personnel and those with disabilities. The Council was looking to provide fully accessible housing and he would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with her.
Jeremy Hagon addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 6(5). He was aware of the Council’s proposals for Garden Communities but noted that Council leaflets on its strategic priorities published in 2018 made no mention of them. He asked the Leader of the Council how the Council had made residents aware of the Garden Communities project and if he would publish information showing how North Essex Garden Communities Ltd had spent public funding.
Councillor Cory, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that information about the Local Plan was readily available on the Council’s website. The Local Plan had been subject to public consultation and there had a number of public meetings and community events, providing information about the Local Plan and the proposed Garden Communities. Information about NEGC spend had been provided at previous meetings and would be available in the published reports and minutes, and through NEGC Ltd’s published accounts.
Trevor Orton addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) to express his concern about the closure of the disabled toilet in the public toilets at Lion Walk. These had remained out of order for over two weeks, which he considered was unacceptable. Repairs should be carried out within 24 hours. The general condition of the toilets was also poor. It was counter-productive to spend money on attracting tourists, when the basic facilities were not maintained.
Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Environment and Transportation, explained that he was looking into the costs for a refurbishment of the Lion Walk toilets. They suffered from vandalism and thefts of supplies. Town centre staffing levels were high. A seven-day rota was operated to ensure that facilities were kept in a good condition and that repairs were undertaken as soon as possible.
Clare French addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) on behalf of head teachers in Colchester to stress the need for fair funding of education. Education provided opportunities and changed lives. Teachers wanted to provide the best possible life chances for pupils, but this was becoming harder to achieve. Whilst the government claimed that funding had increased this was disingenuous as costs had risen also. As well as teaching, there were wide-ranging demands on their time, such as acting as de facto social workers, counsellors and healthcare providers. Schools needed to be given the necessary resources to do this. Essex County Council was facing a £50 million funding deficit. Within her school, she had had to make three Learning Support Assistants and two teachers redundant and was forced to run her school on the bare minimum of staff. Whilst teachers wanted every child to count, with costs rising faster than funding some counted more than others. The Council needed to act and lobby the government on the issue.
Matilda Francis, a year 5 pupil, addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5). She highlighted the range of costs that schools faced. Schools had £271 less per pupil than they had when she was in year 1 and she highlighted how difficult it was for schools to achieve savings on that scale. She urged Council to support the motion to encourage the government to provide further funding for schools.
Emma Marks, Finance and Business Manager for the Tiptree and Stanway Primary School consortium, addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5). Between 2015-17 school block funding increased by 1% or less, whilst staff costs over that period rose by over 2%. Whilst funding had increased in subsequent years, it did not do so at a rate that kept pace with rising staff costs. With salaries reaching 90% of budgets, schools struggled to balance their costs against income which led to them using their reserves to balance their budgets. Pay rises were set nationally and therefore schools had little control over staff costs. The increase of 3.5% this year had put an enormous strain on school budgets, and whilst grants had been provided to offset some of these costs, there was no guarantee that these would continue. Uplifts in pension contributions and the introduction of the minimum wage were also having an impact on school budgets. In order to deal with these financial pressures schools were cutting back maintenance costs to the bare minimum and were being forced to make staff redundant.
Ian King, Governor and Chair of the Finance Committee at Chappel Primary School, addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) and highlighted that school costs were increasing at a faster rate than school funding. Therefore, schools were effectively facing year on year cuts. As a consequence, vital equipment was not replaced and building maintenance suffered. In some school parents’ groups were stepping into to help and making voluntary donations to help buy essential materials. Schools were simply not receiving sufficient funding.
David Evans addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) in his role as a teacher and asw an official of the National Education Union. Whilst headteachers had sought to manage their budgets carefully, many had been forced to make redundancies. These had been applied right across school staffing structures from Deputy Heads to Midday Assistants. This had a severe impact right across schools leading to low morale and increased workload amongst staff and pupils losing trusted and much loved staff. It contributed to the epidemic of stress faced by the teaching profession, with teachers working on average a 55-hour week. The country would be relying on the expertise of its children in years to come and needed to be prepared to pay for it.
Claire Rogerson addressed Council pursuant to the, provision of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) in her capacity as a parent of two school aged children and school governor. The Funding for Schools campaign highlighted that school funding was now in crisis. Politicians needed to act to ensure that schools received the funding that they needed. A survey by the campaign revealed that 74 % of respondents had made staff redundant or planned to do so this financial year; 65% of teachers felt they did not have enough resources to cope with the emotional needs of children and 43% reported that subjects and lessons had been cut due to budget constraints. Despite cutting Learning Support Assistant (LSA) provision by 20% at their school, LSA costs had increased by £20,000. Costs could not be reduced without further impacting on staffing levels, which would have a detrimental impact on children. Further funding had to be made available for education and children deserved better.
Councillor Lilley, Portfolio Holder for Communities, Wellbeing and Public Safety responded to the speakers on funding for education. The impact of the issues around funding were that vulnerable children slipped through the net and were drawn into crime. The government needed to be aware that cuts have consequences, and funding for education should be treated as a priority.