344
Anna Appleyard addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) on behalf of Refill Colchester This was a scheme to reduce the use of plastic bottles through the use of an app which showed users where bottles could be refilled without charge. It had been launched in 2018 and had received considerable support from members of the public and Councillors. There were now 50 refilling stations in Colchester, and Refill Colchester was looking for support in order to widen usage of the scheme. In particular it would be beneficial to have representative at the Council’s public events, for it to be promoted through the Council’s print and digital channels and through working with the Better Colchester brand.
Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Environment and Transportation, responded and indicated that he would be happy to meet to discuss how to promote their work further. Councillor King, Portfolio Holder for Business and Resources, indicated his support for their work and highlighted the work the Council was taking forward in order to reduce the use of single use plastics.
Tom Foster, Chairman of CAUSE, addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) to express his concerns about North Essex Garden Communities Ltd. The Council had already provided £600,000 of funding and was due to commit a further £350,000 in December 2019. Over the following two years it would provide a further £5 million. Whilst its interim Business Plan stated that it would raise funding through the private sector, the Council would carry the risk as NEGC Ltd had no assets. It was a delivery vehicle with no plan to deliver, no structure to deliver it with and no land to build on. The Directors of NEGC Ltd had authorised a programme of community engagement. However, this had been launched before the responses to the consultation had been considered. Three of the four directors of NEGC Ltd were senior Cabinet members of the relevant authorities and he considered that the Local Plan was pre-determined. He asked whether the Council taken legal advice on whether the community engagement work by NEGC Ltd could prejudice the Local Plan inspection and whether it conflicted with rules on state aid.
Councillor King, Portfolio Holder for Business and Resources, stressed the importance of learning from critics of the proposals and of working together with partners and with affected communities, no matter what the conclusions of the Inspector were. Consideration also had to be given to the needs of those who were silent on the issue and to those who suffered through the lack of planning and of social infrastructure. There was value in the work that NEGC Ltd were undertaking on community engagement. Issues on state aid had already been addressed and published and there were no issues in the community engagement work running alongside the Inspection process.
John Akker addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure 6(5) on behalf of Stop 350 to express his concern about Part 2 of the Local Plan. There were grave dangers from developers applying for planning permissions before Part 2 was agreed. Whilst this was an issue for the whole borough, this was illustrated in West Mersea. Over 1700 residents had commented on the Local Plan, over 600 had attended a local meeting and the community was engaged in the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan. This was in the belief that their detailed comments would be submitted to the Inspector next year. However, multiple planning applications were now being submitted in advance of the Local Plan being agreed. If approved, these would set aside the Local Plan. This was not how planning policy should be developed: there should be a planned approach with policy being approved by the Inspector and not developed through the piecemeal approval of applications. The Council should resist such planning applications and be prepared to defend its decisions at appeal, the danger of which were sometimes overstated.
Councillor J. Young, Portfolio Holder for Culture and Performance, indicated that a written response would be sent.
Neil Gilbranch addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) and expressed his support for the motion proposing a contingency Plan B for the Local Plan. It was difficult for members of the public to engage with the Local Plan process. For example in respect of the A12 there were 4 new options which was causing further uncertainty for residents. NEGC Ltd were now undertaking further engagement to find out what residents wanted in Garden Communities, rather than what they wanted in the borough as a whole. This suggested predetermination and undue haste.
Councillor J. Young, Portfolio Holder for Culture and Performance, thanked Mr Gilbranch for his comments which were noted.
Ali Wilkin addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5). Members of the Equality Action Group Now had been labelled as “conspiracy theorists” by the Department of Work and Pensions on Channel Four news. However, the oppression of disabled people was not a conspiracy theory. Their income had been cut and had been subject to humiliating assessments. Disability hate crime had doubled, and people with disabilities claiming benefits were often reported for suspected benefits fraud on the most spurious of grounds. It was a misconception that inclusion and accessibility was the norm, when it was normally an add on, secured through the hard work of disability campaigners. Therefore, people with disabilities took the business of politics seriously, and asked that when they approached politicians for help, they were given respect in return.
Councillor Lilley, Portfolio Holder for Communities, Wellbeing and Public Safety, responded and thanked Ali Wilkin for attending and drawing the Council’s attention to these issues. The Police had set up a specialist unit to deal with hate crimes. He invited her to send in further details and he would look into the issues.