Meeting Details

The Mayor welcomed Councillor Bourne following his recent election in the by-election for New Town and Christ Church. 

Samantha Compton addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) in support of the motion on the Domestic Abuse Housing Covenant.  She explained her lived experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and explained how systemic pressures affected her family.  These included no clear trauma informed pathway for survivors entering temporary accommodation, overwhelming caseloads for staff and a lack of consistent safeguarding processes. This led to instability, fear and crisis even though everyone was trying their best. The motion addressed the structural gaps that had impacted her. These included a single point of entry and a rental guarantee scheme. These changes would have prevented her situation from escalating and would prevent future families from avoidable harm. She set out what needed to change including ensuring trauma informed practice was  embedded from the first point of contact and safe, appropriate temporary accommodation pathways for vulnerable families.

Councillor J. Young, Portfolio Holder for Housing, responded to thank Samantha for her courage in raising these matters at Full Council.  She set out how Colchester Borough Homes (CBH) addressed the issues on which she wanted to see change.  For example CBH used a range of temporary accommodation units and each was assessed for its suitability for the applicant and had to pass specific checks.  It was accepted that it could be a challenge to find suitable accommodation, but they always worked with the individual to find the most suitable accommodation. The Housing Options Team was experienced and knowledgeable in all housing issues but were not experts in domestic abuse. They did receive training and support and there were several tools and services they could refer too when applications relating to domestic abuse were received.  As part of its Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance accreditation the Council had to show how it met eight criteria for supporting survivors of domestic abuse. Issues around removing credits checks and coerced debt were a wider issue for the private rented sector more generally. CBH adhered to strict safeguarding processes. It had a safeguarding policy and all staff received training.  The Council would welcome joined up working In the design and implementation of the covenant to ensure that survivor voices were part of the service design and delivery. 

A statement from Vanessa Lund was read to Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(7) in support of the motion on the Domestic Abuse Housing Covenant.  The statement highlighted the difficulties she had faced with bureaucracy and unhelpful organisations who had no understanding or specific training in domestic abuse.  The organisations which domestic abuse survivors needed to deal with were not linked and there was no representation available to work on behalf of victims.  In particular there were financial issues and barriers for victims.  A central support organisation needed to be put in place to assist domestic abuse survivors as the issues she faced were common. 

Councillor J. Young, Portfolio Holder for Housing, responded to thank her for providing her testimony. CBH staff were trained in domestic abuse support and had relevant policies and procedures in place.  It remained dedicated to supporting survivors of domestic abuse, which is why it was seeking Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance accreditation. It was always looking to improve services and worked with a number of agencies to provide a joined-up approach.  As a City of Sanctuary, the Council should work towards ensuring better representation for victims and a more holistic approach.  However, it was clear that those affected by this trauma were not currently getting what they needed.

Pauline Bacon addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) in support of the motion on the Community Governance Review.  Although she was a member of Myland Parish Council and had extensive experience as  a parish councillor she was speaking in a personal capacity. Being an urban parish councillor carried with it more money, more opportunities and more responsibility than a village parish councillor.  Myland Community Council had met a real need for ultra local involvement and parish councillors worked hard.  The proposal to “parish” all of Colchester’s urban area was to be welcomed, otherwise the unparished areas would miss out on what other residents had access to.  If work began now, it would hopefully be in place before the City Council was incorporated into a larger unitary authority. It was hoped that as part of devolution and local government reorganisation, parish councils might gain access to resources currently controlled by the City Council.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked the speaker for her support for the motion and for her service. Given that areas of the city were unparished it was vital that the Council looked again at what could be provided at the lowest tier of local government, and the support of council in filling that gap was to be welcomed. 

Honorary Alderman Theresa Higgins addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) in support of the motion on the Community Governance Review. The present government was forcing local government reorganisation on Colchester City Council despite it not being in their manifesto. When reorganisation took place Colchester would lose its civic traditions, as would Southend and Chelmsford. This motion would allow arrangements to be put in place to secure civic traditions, either by establishing a parish council for unparished areas or through the creation of charter trustees.  These processes had been used elsewhere, such as in Durham and Chester, to protect civic traditions. This was important as Colchester had a long history of civic traditions.  It had the longest serving borough/city mayoralty in Essex, as well as unique traditions such as the Opening of the Oyster Fishery and the Oyster Feast.  It also had magnificent assets, such as the Castle and the Town Hall. Colchester should not lose its civic traditions to an unplanned local government reorganisation. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, stressed that the Council was proud of Colchester’s history and of its civic traditions.  Although it could not bind its successor authority, he would make the strongest case he could for their preservation.  The Council was looking at what had been done elsewhere and was aware of the possibilities presented by charter trustees.  The issue was being dealt through the cross-party Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation Advisory Group.  

Carinna Cooper, Colchester Council Watch, addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1).  The response received from the Monitoring Officer to Colchester Council Watch’s Formal Notice about the Council’s ability to manage systematic emergencies relied on the assurance of external auditors, who were more experienced in financial accounting rather than the Council’s ability to deal with complex emergencies.  The Council had declared a Climate Emergency and in doing so had assumed a heightened fiduciary duty of care to its residents. There was evidence that the Council was still prioritising political signalling over operational safety. Council Watch had issued default notices to three councils in the south west as they were found to be unfit to execute the operational policies they had created and there was similar institutional blindness at Colchester.  Formal notice had been served on the Council that an independent Citizen Assembly had assessed the risk of harm from the Council’s ability to manage emergency management as critical.  To protect the public and to protect the Council from liability the Council should commission an independent Public Interest report.  The Council should not accept business as usual for a situation it had declared as an emergency. The motions in respect of Democratic Local Elections and Digital ID Cards were supported. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio for Strategy, responded to explain that the default notices that had been issued were of their own making and were not from an independent organisation. The Council’s emergency planning sat within a national framework.  A recognised example of how local government, in conjunction with local partners and central government, had responded effectively to an emergency was the response to the Covid 19 pandemic.  In terms of the climate emergency, local government needed to decide what its priorities were and where resources would be directed. The Council had devoted resources to areas and issues connected to climate change such as flooding at the Hythe and on coastal flooding issues.  There was always a balance to be struck with the other priorities facing the Council. In terms of the Council’s performance, he considered that it did as well as circumstances allowed.  It was not accepted that external audit had no place. There was robust challenge within the organisation, via Scrutiny Panel and Governance and Audit Committee, and external scrutiny via organisations such as CIPFA and the Local Government Association. 

Orlando Clarke addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) on behalf of King Edward Quay boat residents. The Council’s recent decision to defer the commencement of any enforcement action against vessels unable to comply with the licensing terms at such short notice until the end of March was welcomed.  The willingness to engage was appreciated.  Many of the issues arose from sporadic and poor management and a lack of community engagement. Was it reasonable to expect upfront payment of yearly fees sometimes approaching £10,000? The linking of fees to unspecified improvements was noted, but no other neighbourhood was expected to directly fund community improvements. The extra time should be utilised by the Council to:-
• Work with boaters to identify and develop new moorings within the City and improve facilities.
• Provide clear, transparent and regular updates on progress of the alternative sites.
• Recognise the practical challenges of moving a vessel and the emotional toll it was taking on the residents, especially in winter.

The Council and residents should work together to find a just outcome that protected this valued community and secured a sustainable future for the Hythe. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and welcomed his statement and engagement. The ongoing engagement needed commitment and movement on both sides. The suggestion that this was an unreasonable attempt to raise revenue was not incorrect. Proper licensing was necessary and was in everyone’s interests.  

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 October 2025 were confirmed as a correct record.  

The Mayor reminded members of the following events:

• Civic Carol Service, 14 December 2025, St Lawrence Church, Rowhedge.
• Reading of A Christmas Carol, 15 December 2025, Colchester Castle.

RESOLVED that the recommendations from the Independent Remuneration Panel following its review of the Member Allowances Scheme as set out in paragraph 4.4(a)-(b) of the report by the Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer be approved and adopted. 

RESOLVED that the recommendation contained in draft minute 232 of the Licensing Committee meeting of 12 November 2025 be approved and adopted.

Councillors C. Spindler and M. Spindler (in respect of Councillor M. Spindler’s business) declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in this item pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 9(5) and left the meeting for the duration of its consideration and determination.

RESOLVED that the recommendation contained in draft minute 233 of the Licensing Committee meeting of 12 November 2025 be approved and adopted.

RESOLVED that the recommendation contained in draft minute 234 of the Licensing Committee meeting of 12 November 2025 be approved and adopted.

It was proposed by Councillor Dundas that:-

Council Notes: 

1. Elections to District and County Councils are due across England in May 2026 including nine areas which had elections postponed in May 2025 due to being part of the Devolution Priority Programme and earmarked for Local Government Reorganisation. 
2. Whilst there may have been justification for postponement in May 2025 due to the urgency of business cases proposals needing to be submitted there is no such justification in May 2026 as all the proposals were completed and submitted in September 2025. It is now the Government’s decision as to which are implemented. 
3. Whilst it is recognised that Councillors elected in May 2026 would likely only serve until April 2028 this is not without precedent. In 2015 CBC elections 20 Councillors were elected with 12-month terms and had the planned “all-outs” taken place in May 2026 under new boundaries 17 Colchester City Councillors would have been elected for just 12 months.  
4. It is usual practice that Council areas undergoing re-organisation do not have scheduled elections when a Structural Order has been passed by Parliament. Therefore, it would be normal that May 2027 elections in Essex would be to the new shadow Unitary Councils and other scheduled elections would not take place assuming the current timetable is adhered to. This will also be the case in places such as Surrey in May 2026. However, it is not normal precedent for elections prior at this stage of LGR to be cancelled.  
5. Cancellation of elections in May 2026 would see Councillors in many areas across England who were elected for four years see their terms extended to up to seven. This is without precedent outside of war times and is unacceptable. 
6. It would be unreasonable and unfair to pressure Councillors to stand down voluntarily as it is a principle that elections take place on an equal basis. 
7. There is no justification whatsoever for any difference in approach between Upper Tier, Unitary and District Councils in Essex or across different areas in England on the same LGR timetable as all face the same reorganisation schedule and challenges. 

Council therefore resolves that: 

1. It is the expressed will of Full Council that the Leader of the Council writes to the Secretary of State of Housing, Communities and Local Government co-signed with all Group Leaders stating that it is the firm view of Colchester City Councillors that all elections scheduled for May 2026 go ahead as planned (including those due in Essex for County, Upper Tier and District Councils) in all areas of the United Kingdom unless a structural order has been laid and elections will instead take place for shadow councillors to a new shadow unitary authority.  

A main amendment was moved by Councillor Smith as follows:-

That the motion on Democratic Local Elections May 2026 be approved and adopted subject to the following amendments:

In section “Council Notes” the addition of the following paragraph:-

8. Recognises that the elections for the one third of seats will have to take place on the existing wards despite them not meeting the rules set out for electoral equality as it would not be possible for the Boundary Commission to complete the work on new boundaries which they suspended due to Local Government Reform. 

In the resolution, the deletion of the words “co-signed with all Group Leaders” and their replacement with the words "co-signed with those Group Leaders that wish to”

Councillor Dundas accepted the main amendment and the motion was deemed amended accordingly.  The revised wording of the motion was therefore as follows:-

Council Notes: 

1. Elections to District and County Councils are due across England in May 2026 including nine areas which had elections postponed in May 2025 due to being part of the Devolution Priority Programme and earmarked for Local Government Reorganisation. 
2. Whilst there may have been justification for postponement in May 2025 due to the urgency of business cases proposals needing to be submitted there is no such justification in May 2026 as all the proposals were completed and submitted in September 2025. It is now the Government’s decision as to which are implemented. 
3. Whilst it is recognised that Councillors elected in May 2026 would likely only serve until April 2028 this is not without precedent. In 2015 CBC elections 20 Councillors were elected with 12-month terms and had the planned “all-outs” taken place in May 2026 under new boundaries 17 Colchester City Councillors would have been elected for just 12 months.  
4. It is usual practice that Council areas undergoing re-organisation do not have scheduled elections when a Structural Order has been passed by Parliament. Therefore, it would be normal that May 2027 elections in Essex would be to the new shadow Unitary Councils and other scheduled elections would not take place assuming the current timetable is adhered to. This will also be the case in places such as Surrey in May 2026. However, it is not normal precedent for elections prior at this stage of LGR to be cancelled.  
5. Cancellation of elections in May 2026 would see Councillors in many areas across England who were elected for four years see their terms extended to up to seven. This is without precedent outside of war times and is unacceptable. 
6. It would be unreasonable and unfair to pressure Councillors to stand down voluntarily as it is a principle that elections take place on an equal basis. 
7. There is no justification whatsoever for any difference in approach between Upper Tier, Unitary and District Councils in Essex or across different areas in England on the same LGR timetable as all face the same reorganisation schedule and challenges. 
8. Recognises that the elections for the one third of seats will have to take place on the existing wards despite them not meeting the rules set out for electoral equality as it would not be possible for the Boundary Commission to complete the work on new boundaries which they suspended due to Local Government Reform. 


Council therefore resolves that: 

1. It is the expressed will of Full Council that the Leader of the Council writes to the Secretary of State of Housing, Communities and Local Government co-signed with those Group Leaders that wish to stating that it is the firm view of Colchester City Councillors that all elections scheduled for May 2026 go ahead as planned (including those due in Essex for County, Upper Tier and District Councils) in all areas of the United Kingdom unless a structural order has been laid and elections will instead take place for shadow councillors to a new shadow unitary authority.  

Councillor T. Young, supported by Councillor J. Young, proposed that the vote be taken pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 15(7).  On being put to the vote the proposal was lost and the debate continued. 

At the conclusion of the debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried (FORTY voted FOR, NONE voted AGAINST and TWO ABSTAINED from voting).

A named vote was requested pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 15(2) by Councillor Laws, supported by Councillors Lissimore and Willetts.  The voting was as follows:-

FOR: Councillors Alake-Akinyemi, Appleton, Barber, Bourne, Calverley, Cory, Çufoglu, Davidson, Dundas, Goacher, Goss, Hagon, Harris, King, Kirkby-Taylor, Laws, Lissimore, Luxford Vaughan, Maclean, McCarthy, Moffat, Naylor, Osborne, Parsons, Pearson, Powling, Rippingale, Scordis, Scott-Boutell, Smith, Smithson,  Sommers, C. Spindler, M. Spindler, Sunnucks, Tate, Warnes, Willetts, J. Young and T.  Young.

AGAINST: None

ABSTAINED FROM VOTING: The Deputy Mayor (Ellis), the Mayor (Lilley).

The Mayor indicated that in view of the current United Nations campaign against violence against women and girls, and the request from unions that this matter be considered, he would revise the order in which the motions were considered and would take the motion on the Domestic Abuse Housing Covenant for Colchester first. 

It was proposed by Councillor Osborne that:-

This Council notes:
• Domestic abuse is a leading cause of homelessness, with survivors often unable to access safe housing due to financial abuse, coerced debt, and poor credit histories.
• 95% of survivors experience financial abuse and 43% are left in debt, making private renting difficult because landlords rely on credit checks, increasing pressure on social housing.
• Even with CBH’s Homestep scheme, barriers remain. Of 400 households assessed, 270 were eligible but still could not secure private rentals.
• 131 individuals in temporary accommodation in Colchester are victims of domestic abuse, highlighting urgent need for safe housing solutions.
• CBH is working towards DAHA accreditation, the gold standard for housing responses to domestic abuse.
This Council believes:
• Survivors should not be penalised for financial harm inflicted by perpetrators.
• Housing responses must be trauma-informed, inclusive, and prevent retraumatisation.
• Survivors need one point of entry into housing, welfare, and financial support services.
• Support must include those with No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF).
This Council resolves to:
1. Establish a Domestic Abuse Housing Covenant, embedding DAHA principles into CBH and Council housing policies and practices.
2. Create a single point of entry through a dedicated Domestic Abuse Housing Support Officer and Financial Inclusion Pathway, offering: 
o Benefit checks, debt advice, and credit repair support.
o Tailored assistance for survivors with NRPF.
3. Pilot a Rental Guarantee Scheme to remove barriers such as deposits and credit checks.
4. Ensure safe temporary accommodation that prevents retraumatisation.
5. Introduce a Domestic Abuse Champions Network across CBH and Council services.
6. Formalise partnerships with domestic abuse charities, financial institutions, and landlord forums.
Funding and Legislative Ask
This Council calls on Government to:
• Provide ring-fenced funding for local authorities to deliver innovative housing solutions for survivors through the Dormant Asset Fund.
• Review the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 to introduce statutory protections for survivors of financial abuse when applying for credit or housing, including mechanisms to remove coerced debt and prevent discrimination based on abuse-related financial harm.
• Address barriers for survivors with No Recourse to Public Funds.
This Council further resolves:
• To report annually on DAHA accreditation and covenant implementation.
• To engage survivor voice through a lived experience advisory panel.

On being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the schedule of Portfolio Holder decisions covering the period 7 October 2025 – 21 November 2025 be noted.