Meeting Details

Barry Gilheany of RAMA addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) to raise concerns about the way a family in Colchester, who right to remain in the United Kingdom, had been treated by Immigration Enforcement Officers and the impact this had had on the family.  RAMA continued to liaise with Immigration Enforcement on the case, but the notice to leave the country had not yet been revoked. There were other cases of concern to RAMA. RAMA were also querying why Immigration Enforcement had added “Compliance” into their title, with connotations to ICE teams in the United States. This should be of concern to Council given the City of Sanctuary application was now being assessed by the decision team.

Councillor Law, Portfolio Holder for Communities and Public Protection, responded that she was content to take this issue up with the Member of Parliament, and would arrange to meet with Mr Gilheany to follow up on his concerns.

Sir Bob Russell addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) to express his concern that the Mayor had not been invited to the opening of St Nicholas Square. As First Citizen, the Mayor should be invited to undertake all openings in the city that related to council buildings and development. There had been a number of other openings in which the Mayor had not been involved, such as the opening of Elfreda House.  There should be a protocol whereby the Mayor undertook all openings relating to council buildings and development.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that no disrespect had been intended. He would ensure that the relevant protocols were reviewed. 

Caroline White addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) on behalf of Friends of Middlewick to thank the Council for listing Middlewick as an Asset of Community Value.  However it still lacked the Site of Special Scientific Interest designation it needed to ensure it was protected, conserved and enhanced. Its importance to Colchester’s Nature Recovery had been recognised by Natural England and part of the site was recognised as a Strategic Biodiversity Opportunity in the Local Plan.  Friends of Middlewick had highlighted the need for an appropriate management plan for the site, including the gorse area.  The spread of recent fires on the site could have been prevented by fire breaks and the removal of dead gorse.  As a result of intervention by Friends of Middlewick with Natural England, more appropriate fire safeguards were in place, but the MOD said they did not have the budget for better management of the gorse.  Urgent action was needed to restore the area that was now covered with a thick layer of ash.  Failure  to clear the area of ash  and burnt wood would degrade the area further. SSSI protection was needed to ensure appropriate management of the site.   Would the Council meet with Natural England again to put the case for SSSI designation and the need for management to restore the burnt area?

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Sustainable Development, explained that she would send a written response.  The Issue of SSSI status for Middlewick had been raised with Natural England and she would forward the response.  They agreed that the site met the criteria but they did not have plans to pursue this but would work with the MOD on an appropriate management plan.

Carinna Cooper addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) and welcomed the decision of the Local Plan Committee not to put the draft Local Plan out to consultation. The draft Plan had clear public health risks. Under the Bill of Rights, any legislation which caused harm to people was unlawful.  When addressing Cabinet in April she had identified harms caused by the government’s response to the Covid 19 pandemic and the lack of safeguards against political agendas but her concerns were not taken seriously.  She had also provided evidence to the Council of harms caused by successive governments but the Council had not deviated from government agendas.  It had failed to act in an evidence based way on issues such as 5G. The Council was not acting as it was obligated to so as to prevent public harm and councillors were not able to act in accordance with the Nolan principles. Councillors needed to be aware that they would be held accountable for harms caused by the approval of unsafe 5G masts.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy responded and explained that independent advice on the safety of 5G had been sought.  It would be shared when it was received and would be taken account in the Council’s processes. It was not accepted that the Council sought to impinge on civil liberties.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings held on 21 May 2025 and 9 June 2025 be confirmed as a correct record.  

The Mayor expressed his thanks to those councillors who attended the Civic Service on 29 July 2025, and also to his Chaplain and those officers who had supported the service. 

RESOLVED  that the recommendation contained in draft minute 514 of the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 15 May 2025 be approved and adopted.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS) that the recommendations contained in draft minute 507 of the Governance and Audit Committee meeting of 17 June 2025 be approved and adopted.

It was proposed by Councillor Parsons that:-

This Council notes
1. The findings of the local plan Water Cycle Study that the Essex South Water Resource Zone which covers Colchester west of the Colne and the surrounding rural areas “is predicted to go into supply deficit by 2025 if no water resource interventions are implemented” i.e. be unable to supply the needs of the existing population to acceptable standards; and that “this is predominantly due to growth in demand coupled with a fall in water supply available.”
2. The need for urgent upgrades to sewage treatment capacity and the building of the new water re-use plant in Colchester if more houses are to be built.
3. That failure to address these issues before new houses are built will create serious risks to public health.
4. The Council additionally notes the recent comments of the Environment Secretary, Steve Reed, that the UK as a whole faces running out of clean water and the introduction of water rationing within 10 years unless there is major investment in infrastructure. 
5. In this context, the Council notes that Essex is the most water stressed part of the UK.

The Council therefore resolves:

That the Council should seek an urgent meeting with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government asking the government to ensure that the necessary water and sewage infrastructure is provided so that Colchester can safely deliver the government house-building target.

A main amendment was proposed by Councillor Scordis as follows:-

That the motion on Colchester’s Water Crisis be approved and adopted subject to the following amendments:-

The addition of the following words at the end of sub paragraph 1:-

“Although it is accepted that mitigation measures mean that that there is little prospect of any water shortages for any local residents in the short term.  However, that is not to say that things are not already happening.   Over the next 5 years, Anglian Water is investing  £11 billion in the region in vital water and waste water infrastructure.  The strategic pipeline, which will stretch  from North Lincolnshire to Essex will allow between 15 and 55 million litres of water a day to be moved from “wetter” to “drier” parts of the region”.

In sub paragraph 4, the deletion of the words “The Council additionally notes” and at the end of sub paragraph 4, the addition of the following words “which was not planned by the previous Conservative government”. 

After sub paragraph 4, the addition of the following words:-

“5.            The inability of the previous Conservative government to regulate the privatised water companies, such as Anglian Water, effectively.
6.            The dreadful record of the last Conservative government and the privatised water companies in allowing raw sewage to be pumped into our rivers and seas causing pollution which posed serious risks to both the environment and public health.
7.           The Labour Government’s commitment to build nine new reservoirs online by 2050 which have the potential to provide 670 million litres of extra water per day. These new major reservoirs will be the first built in 30 years.”

Sub paragraph 5 to be renumbered as sub paragraph 8 and the following words to be deleted  from sub-paragraph 8 “In this context the Council notes”

After sub paragraph 8, the addition of the following words:-

“9. Water companies are not statutory consultees, so planning authorities do not have to take water companies conditions or objections into account.”

In the resolution:-

In the first sentence the deletion of the words “Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government asking” and the insertion of the following words in their place “Secretaries of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to congratulate them on the action they have taken against the privatised water companies since they came into office and to ask”.

At the end of the resolution the addition of the following words:-

“including looking at the option of renationalisation of water in the UK. It is imperative that water companies must be a statutory consultee for planning applications, to enable these vital services to be delivered as statutorily required.  This should feature in our letter to the Secretary of State.

Furthermore our planning department should consider recommendations from the Good Homes Alliance to ensure consideration is given to delivering homes with high standards of water efficiency which is a good way to ensure that homes can be delivered in water stressed areas.”

Councillor Parsons indicated that the main amendment was not accepted. 

At the conclusion of the debate, following cross party discussion,  it was proposed that the wording of the motion be amended to read as follows:-.  

“This Council notes
 
1.                       The findings of the local plan Water Cycle Study that the Essex South Water Resource Zone which covers Colchester west of the Colne and the surrounding rural areas “is predicted to go into supply deficit by 2025 if no water resource interventions are implemented” i.e. be unable to supply the needs of the existing population to acceptable standards; and that “this is predominantly due to growth in demand coupled with a fall in water supply available.” Over the next 5 years, Anglian Water is investing  £11 billion in the region in vital water and waste water infrastructure.  The strategic pipeline, which will stretch  from North Lincolnshire to Essex will allow between 15 and 55 million litres of water a day to be moved from “wetter” to “drier” parts of the region.
2.                       The need for urgent upgrades to sewage treatment capacity and the building of the new water re-use plant in Colchester if more houses are to be built.
3.                       That failure to address these issues before new houses are built will create serious risks to public health.
4.                       The recent comments of the Environment Secretary, Steve Reed, that the UK as a whole faces running out of clean water and the introduction of water rationing within 10 years unless there is major investment in infrastructure.
5          That Essex is the most water stressed part of the UK.
6          Water companies are not statutory consultees, so planning authorities do not have to take water companies conditions or objections into account.
 
 
The Council therefore resolves:
 
That the Council should seek an urgent meeting with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government asking the government to ensure that the necessary water and sewage infrastructure is provided so that Colchester can safely deliver the government house-building target. It is imperative that water companies must be a statutory consultee for planning applications, to enable these vital services to be delivered as statutorily required.  This should feature in our letter to the Secretary of State.
 
Furthermore our planning department should consider recommendations from the Good Homes Alliance to ensure consideration is given to delivering homes with high standards of water efficiency which is a good way to ensure that homes can be delivered in water stressed areas.
 
To work with neighbouring authorities in the above respect.”

The main amendment proposed by Councillor Scordis was withdrawn and Councillor Parsons indicated he was content with the amended wording of the motion. 

On being put to the vote the amended motion was approved and adopted (MAJORITY voted FOR).

It was proposed by Councillor T. Young that:-

Over the past year we have experienced frequent episodes where communities have experienced disruption to their travel that could have been alleviated with better planning. 

Too often we have had utility works going on in an area and highway repairs or improvements either running concurrently or in near succession causing road users the need for extensive diversions to get to and from their home. 

Not only is this frustrating, being late for appointments or work but delays have economic consequences too. 

Therefore this authority calls upon Essex County Council to develop a process to plan works with utility companies and highway engineers to minimise disruption to road users thereby allowing traffic to move around more freely. 

On being put to the vote, the motion was approved and adopted (MAJORITY voted FOR).

RESOLVED that the schedule of Portfolio Holder decisions covering the period 17 February – 8 July 2025 be noted.