Meeting Details

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 22 October 2025 be confirmed as a correct record.

Paul Rogers addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1).  He lived in close proximity to the ABRO site, which was subject to a redevelopment of 2053 residential units and also 160 square metres of commercial floorspace. As part of the planning process local residents had made representations about the use of Flagstaff Road as the sole access and exit point. Flagstaff Road was an important link between the Abbey Fields area and the city centre and was also the main access route to St Johns School.  There  were concerns about the impact of the development on the safety of pedestrians and cyclists where the road was not wide enough to comply with ECC Design Guide guidance.  If the road were to be widened it would likely need the removal of a line of protected mature trees, atop the Roman Circus.  Residents had commissioned an Independent Highway Advice note for consideration by members of the Planning Committee, which indicated a number of concerns about highway issues and how these had been considered in the planning process. What steps were the Council taking to protect the safety of residents, the protected assets of the city and the city’s heritage in the aftermath of the appeal decision to grant planning permission? 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded to explain that the planning permission was subject to conditions around the protection and development of the site and the Council’s Planning team were in contact with the developer around those conditions. They included significant improvements to footpaths, cycle paths and crossings and also protection for the trees. He would ask that the speaker be kept informed. 

Ismail Cufoglu addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1).  Data from the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England showed a concerning trend of rising childhood obesity as well as worrying levels of tooth decay. Obesity was also an issue in the adult population.  It increased the risk of type 2 diabetes and other serious medical conditions.  It was important to act early to prevent a lifetime of avoidable illness. Research from Cancer UK showed that children seeing junk food adverts every day were twice as likely to become obese. More than 20 councils in the United Kingdom had taken initiatives and banned or were planning to ban unhealthy food adverts on council owned property, transport or in public spaces.  It was also banned on the Transport for London Network.  Therefore Colchester City Council should join these councils and ban adverts for food categorised as unhealthy by the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS and ban unhealthy food adverts on council-owned property, transport and in public spaces. Furthermore, the Council should write to Essex County Council and lobby them to implement a similar ban.

Councillor J. Young, Portfolio Holder for Housing, indicated that she would investigate the issue and see what the Council was able to do in terms of its land and vehicles, and also see how it could influence Essex County Council. 

 A statement from Dr Jane Hindley from the University of Essex branch of the University College Union was read to Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1).  The statement expressed concern about the recent announcement of 400 job losses and the closure of the Southend campus. The union believed this was unnecessary and was balloting on industrial action. Whilst the financial challenges facing the university were recognised, senior management had not engaged with alternative proposals put forward by the Union.  Before taking such action it should consult properly and work with them on credible solutions. The crisis stemmed from serious long and short term mismanagement and over-reliance on expensive consultants. Many staff had warned against the growth strategy that had caused the crisis. The Union sought no compulsory redundancies and genuine engagement with the alternatives they proposed.   The University was a key actor in the local social and cultural life and Cabinet were asked to stand with the union for the future of higher education in Colchester and Southend.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and thanked Dr Hindley for her comments.  The Council shared the shock at the news, although it was aware that change was coming due to the challenges the sector faced. Whilst it had limited influence on these issues, the Council would want to see the best outcome from the consultations that would take place.  These issues were affecting universities nationally.  As a partner to the University it was important that the Council understood their challenges and supported them where able to do so.  It was recognised that this would have a wider impact on the City.  

The Interim Chief Finance Officer submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member .

Councillor Cory, Portfolio for Resources and Assets, introduced the report and highlighted that the draft budget had been produced at an earlier stage than in previous years.  It had been considered by the Scrutiny Panel, and the final recommendations would also be referred to Scrutiny.  He thanked the Section 151 Officer and her team for preparing a clear and well written report. A large budget gap had been closed through a mix of solutions including increased income from fees and charges, an asset disposal programme and transformation and savings.  Budget squads had been formed from officers across the Council who put forward ideas and solutions for savings. These had been RAG rated, and the final decision on which of these to take forward would be made when the financial settlement from government was known. The budget process had been open, and discussions had been held with the other political groups. A briefing for members would be held once the financial settlement from government was known.

Councillor Goacher attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet to raise a number of questions about the capital programme. Confirmation was sought as to what the £4 million to be spent on the Town Hall was for and if this was an indication that it would be the future headquarters of  the new unitary authority following local government reorganisation. In terms of the spend on wheeled bins in the next financial year, where was this coming from and would it be recouped in savings? The funding for play parks was welcomed, but was there a public list of the playgrounds to be upgraded?  Did the lack of funding for Middle Mill from 2027/28 onwards mean a decision had already been taken not to replace the weir?

In response Cabinet members and Patricia Barry, Director of Estates, explained that:-

• The works on the Town Hall were essential maintenance works rather than redevelopment.  This included repairs to the roof and maintenance of electrical and power systems.  This was forward looking investment in a key asset for the community. 
• The investment in wheeled bins would enable the Council to meet new requirements from government in terms of recycling.  This was funded through borrowing but would result in savings. 
• The play parks programme had been included in the previous years budget. All play parks had been reviewed and the decisions about which to refurbish had been taken based on need.  At least one in each ward would benefit, including a very significant investment in the play park in Castle Park.  There had also been a public consultation on the issue which had generated significant interest.  A report on the appointment of contractors would be submitted to Cabinet in February. 
• No decision had been taken on the weir.  The budget reflected decisions that had been taken and further information would be provided on the weir in due course.
• The Green Group should take advantage of the offer of a briefing from financial officers on the budget, which would have provided much of this information. 

Councillor Sunnucks attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet.  He agreed that the narrative and objectives set out in the draft budget were good and welcomed its early publication.  However, he had some concern about the figures in the budget, and it should be approved with caution.  The picture was not as optimistic as portrayed.  Whilst the Scrutiny Panel had not made a formal recommendation, the conservative members of the Panel had concerns about tables 3 and 4 and had requested further information.  The cost basis of the Council was high compared to other authorities, and staff numbers remained high. The Fit for the Future programme had not made much progress in addressing this. The proposed savings were not really savings but were disposals of assets and increased fees and charges. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio for Strategy, responded. The assertion that the administration had not got to grips with these issues was not accepted.  The organisation was lean considering it’s duties and responsibilities and was being run hard.  In addition the Council had to work within government accounting rules.  The draft budget was a good starting point for the next stage of work and the preparation of the final budget. Consideration would be given as to whether it could be clearer on the points he had raised.  This was not the right point to address issues about staffing, but it should be borne in mind that staff numbers included the Council’s commercial companies and Colchester Borough Homes. The Council was also having to deal with the transition to new structures through local government reorganisation.

In further discussion Cabinet members highlighted the risk from funding temporary accommodation but stressed the excellent work of the Council and Colchester Borough Homes in tackling this.  The Beyond the Box scheme had a made a significant contribution to addressing the financial impact of temporary accommodation. The proposals in the budget for the acquisition of new build properties and the supply of 376 temporary accommodation units over the next five years would make a real difference to those families in housing need. The provision of wheeled bins should reduce the number of days lost to sick leave by the waste and recycling teams and make the service more efficient. The Play Parks programme was welcomed and would have a real impact on the health and wellbeing of residents. 

RESOLVED that 

(a) Cabinet considered the 2026/27 Draft Budget and MTFF to 2029/30 included at Appendix A of the Interim Chief Finance Officer’s report and agreed it should form the basis for preparing a final budget report for approval by Full Council in February 2026.

(b) That the Annexes to the report by the Interim Chief Finance Officer be noted,  including the following: 

• The Medium-Term Financial Forecast (MTFF) 2026/27 to 2029/30

• The draft Fees and Charges schedule proposed for 2026/27  

• General Fund Draft Capital Programme 2025/26 to 2027/28 and Indicative Programme 2028/29 to 2030/31 and beyond.

• Pressures 2026/27 to 2029/30

• Proposed Savings 2026/27 to 2029/30

• The Housing Revenue Account Draft Revenue Budget 2026/27

• The Housing Revenue Account Draft Capital Programme 2026/27 – 2030/31

REASONS

For Cabinet to note the draft budget for 2026/27 which will enable further amendments/updates to be made as required such as the implications of the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement expected in mid-December, in advance of the final budget.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The draft budget presents Cabinet’s recommended position on the 2026/27 General Fund and Housing Revenue Account budgets (Revenue and Capital). This was a statutory and constitutional requirement and there were no alternative options.

The Head of Operational Finance submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with draft minute 550 from the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 11 November 2025.

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Assets introduced the report. A number of changes were proposed to the scheme, which would keep it in line with national government policies and its rules on backdating.  It would also provide an uplift to the scheme to ensure it continued to help those on low salaries. It was also proposed that the scheme should disregard any payment made under the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme.  Overall, the changes made the scheme more achievable and enabled it to continue to support residents in a generous way. The Scrutiny Panel had considered the scheme and supported the proposed changes. 

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The proposed eligibility changes to the Protected Group criteria from 1 April 2026 be agreed (see section 8 of the report by the Head of Operational Finance).

(b) The proposed increases to the income bands used to assess residents eligibility to Local Council Tax Support from 1 April 2026 be agreed (see section 9 of the report by the Head of Operational Finance).

(c) The proposed changes to backdating of Local Council Tax Support to a maximum of 3 months for new applications from 1 April 2026 be agreed (see section 10 of the report by the Head of Operational Finance).

(d) The proposal to disregard any payment made under the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme in full, effective from 1 April 2026 be agreed (see section 11 of the report by the Head of Operational Finance).

RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL that the Local Council Tax Support Scheme 2026/27 be approved and adopted.

REASONS

It was recommended the income bands were increased to stay in line with rising household income and expenditure. By increasing the income thresholds, it would ensure the calculation gave a fair representation of a household’s eligible income and low-income households continue to receive support.

The Council had seen an increase in caseload and expenditure since April 2024. Although not solely due to the new scheme being introduced, it was important changes were made now to control these two factors and ensure that support was provided to those who need it most.

It was important to note that the changes proposed would only impact new applicants from 1 April 2026. Pre-existing claimants would not be impacted by the proposed changes unless they have a ‘break in claim’. If they continued to qualify for LCTS following their break in entitlement, they would be assessed under the new qualifying criteria.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

No changes could be made to the scheme for 2026/27. However, this was not recommended because it would not help tackle increasing household income, leading to a misalignment in the assessment of LCTS against household income.

The proposed changes could be implemented but alterations could be made to the Protected Group criteria and/or income bands if Cabinet was not satisfied with the recommended current proposals.

The Strategic Director submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with draft minute 554 of the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 13 November 2025.

Wit the consent of the Chair, a statement from Councillor T. Young was read to Cabinet.  The Heart of Greenstead project was approaching make or break time.  The Greenstead community had been made promises in the past which had not been kept or only partially delivered, so there was some doubt within the community about the Council’s and government’s ability to deliver improvements and much needed regeneration in the area.  Cabinet should support the recommendation to appoint the preferred bidder to carry out phase 1 of the scheme which would bring long awaited services and better facilities to Greenstead.  Magnolia Local Super Output Area was in the top 10% of deprived wards in the country in the latest Indices of Multiple Deprivation and there were real health inequalities.  This project would begin to improve this unacceptable situation.  Greenstead was a resilient community but needed hope and supporting this scheme would give a boost to its pride and self-confidence.  The issues raised by Scrutiny Panel had been addressed.  Everything had been done by the book with support of local community, stakeholders, partners and with efficiency and enthusiasm by the Council’s officers. His interest as Chair of Greenstead Community Association was declared.

Councillor  J. Young, Portfolio Holder for Housing, explained that this was an important moment as this was a major project for Greenstead.  It was the biggest funded project in the Town Deal programme. Greenstead was a pilot area and if the project proceeded it would be an exemplar for a new approach to the delivery of health services. The recommendation was wholly endorsed which would help meet the significant needs of the community in Greenstead.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, emphasised that this was an essential project which would provide a redeveloped multi agency community wellbeing hub.  It would include a community centre, general practice, library, housing office and children’s hub. The report had been subject to a detailed and robust debate at Scrutiny Panel who had supported the recommendation but had asked that further information be provided on several issues.

In respect of these, following discussions with the other parties to the scheme, a solution to the budget shortfall had now been found. Further details about this would be made public in due course.  In terms of whole scheme planning and inter-dependencies, a great deal of planning had gone into this phase of the scheme and this would fit into the later phases of the scheme. Funding was allocated towards completing the balance of the scheme. Further details could be shared with scrutiny when appropriate. In terms of governance, there were three layers of governance for the project: the Local Programme Board, the Town Deal governance structures and the oversight provided by his role as Portfolio Holder for Strategy.  It was also subject to scrutiny through the Council’s Scrutiny Panel.  In terms of the operating budget, the Council was aware that the arrangements needed to be sustainable and was in advanced discussions with Greenstead Community Association, who would operate the Community Centre, and other stakeholders to ensure that the facilities could be run successfully. The issue of due diligence had been dealt with at length at Scrutiny Panel, but the procurement process was a competitive process with test and challenge at every stage. 

RESOLVED that a contract be awarded to the Recommended Bidder to undertake the design and build works for the Heart of Greenstead Phase 1 within the specified contract period.

REASONS

Following evaluation of submitted bids against the criteria and process detailed in the Invitation to Tender, the Recommended Bidder who submitted a bid that met the essential requirements and scored the highest overall marks to offer the best combination of technical merit, social value benefits and pricing compared to other bidders. To complete the contractual requirements prior to the end date of the Town Deal funding period (31 March 2026).

Delivery of Heart of Greenstead was central to furthering the strategic objectives of the Council and partners across multiple high profile work streams with regional and national exposure. This included delivery of the Essex Caring Community Commission Report recommendations and supporting early delivery of the National Neighbourhood Health Implementation Programme objectives for a community with the lowest healthy life expectancy in Colchester.

To deliver this project, and to meet the conditions of the funding for it, the Council needed to appoint a builder and were bound to appoint the tenderer with the highest combined score (quality and price)

The Council also had obligations to its funders the Town Deal programme, as the project is majority funded through these external grant awards.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Not to award the contract to undertake works to redevelop the community centre and library building in the way described in the report. 

This would mean the project not delivering the key project requirements or being delivered within the time frame set out in the Town Deal Grant conditions. This would likely require the Council to return grant funds awarded to deliver the scheme to government.

Not to award the contract and seek to bring forward an alternative scheme. 

The current proposal had been co-produced with stakeholders taking into consideration insight and engagement with the community to best deliver the key project requirements in a way that supported ambitions to bring forward integrated public sector estate and make best use of existing assets. 

The Head of Digital and the Strategic Director submitted reports a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with draft minute 553 from the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 13 November 2025.

Councillor Pearson, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, indicated that he would introduce the Digital Strategy 2025-28 and the Customer Strategy 2025-28 together as they were closely interlinked. They had been considered by the Scrutiny Panel who indicated support for both strategies.  There was a clear need to update and improve the Council’s website, which was a key theme of the Digital Strategy.  It would also provide a safe and secure digital environment for officers, members and customers.  It was appreciated that there had been some issues with the implementation of the strategy with members and the importance of ensuring officers and members bought in to the strategy was understood.  There had been a successful programme of staff training. 

In terms of residents, it was understood that not all had access to or were comfortable with digital solutions, so the Customer Strategy made clear that in person options would be available for those who wished to use them. 

The Digital Strategy helped align the Council’s processes with those of potential partner authorities and so would help with the preparation and implementation of local government reorganisation. 

In respect of the Digital Strategy:-

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The findings and recommendations of the Scrutiny Panel regarding the Colchester Digital Strategy 2025–2028 be noted.

(b) The Digital Strategy 2025–2028 be approved as the Council’s formal roadmap for digital transformation.

(c)    The strategy’s commitment to robust cyber risk management, including the adoption of national frameworks, appointment of a dedicated Cyber Security Lead, and ongoing compliance with recognised standards, be endorsed.

(d)    The alignment with the Essex Digital Partnership and neighbouring authorities, ensuring regional collaboration, shared intelligence, and consistency in digital priorities and cyber resilience, be noted

(e) The strategy’s integration with the Customer Strategy, supporting a customer-focused approach to service delivery and digital innovation, be confirmed.

(f) It be noted that the Strategy supports the adoption of agreed standards and governance for data management, blueprinted and structured reusable templates, and processes, to ensure consistency, quality, and efficiency across all digital initiatives, and to facilitate seamless integration and readiness for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).

(g) Officers should proceed with implementation, ensuring strong governance, financial resilience, and continuous stakeholder engagement.

RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL that the Digital Strategy 2025- 2028 be included in the Council’s Policy Framework (alongside the Customer Strategy)

REASONS

Cyber Risk Management: The strategy embedded comprehensive cyber security measures, including the NCSC Cyber Assessment Framework, a Cyber Incident Response Plan, and multi-layered security controls. These were essential to protect Council systems, data, and residents from evolving threats.

Regional Collaboration: By aligning with the Essex Digital Partnership and neighbouring authorities, the strategy leveraged shared expertise, intelligence, and resources. This strengthened Colchester’s digital resilience, ensured best practice across the region, and supported joint initiatives where appropriate.

Customer-Centric Approach: The strategy was fully integrated with the Customer Strategy, ensuring that digital transformation delivered intuitive, accessible, and high-quality services tailored to residents’ needs.

Data, Standards, and Governance for Integration: The adoption of agreed standards and governance for data management, as well as blueprinted and structured reusable templates and processes, will drive consistency, efficiency, and quality in service delivery. This approach was critical for supporting integration and interoperability, especially in preparation for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).

Governance and Compliance: Oversight by the Digital Pipeline Board and Digital Board ensured that all initiatives are prioritised, risks were monitored, and statutory requirements were met.

Inclusivity and Accessibility: The Equality Impact Assessment demonstrated a      commitment to digital inclusion, ensuring services were accessible for all residents.

Financial and Operational Sustainability: The strategy was designed to maximise value   from existing resources, manage financial pressures, and deliver sustainable innovation.

Consultation and Engagement: Developed through extensive engagement with staff, stakeholders, and residents, the strategy reflected operational realities and user needs.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Do Nothing / Maintain Current Approach
• Description: Continue with existing digital initiatives and priorities without formally adopting the new strategy.
• Audit Risk: Recent audits had identified a high level of risk associated with historical technology debt. This legacy debt exposed Colchester and its residents to unacceptable risks, including a significantly increased attack surface for cyber threats.
• Regional Risk: Neighbouring authorities and the Essex Digital Partnership were actively progressing their digital strategies and preparing for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). If Colchester did not act, it risked being left behind, resulting in: 
o Reduced ability to collaborate and integrate with regional partners.
o Missed opportunities for shared intelligence, resources, and best practice.
o Potential reputational damage and operational disadvantage compared to better-prepared councils.
• Ongoing Technical Debt and Financial Risk: Continuing with the current approach would perpetuate technical debt, prevent a clear view of organisational technology, and lead to increased and lost budgets, wasted resources, and unsupported solutions.
• Direct Impact on Customer-Facing Services: Key projects such as the contact centre and website would not be progressed, directly impacting customers as these services were currently failing and unreliable.

• Implications: 
o Unacceptable Risk Exposure: Known vulnerabilities would remain unaddressed, heightening the likelihood of cyber incidents and data breaches.
o Increased Attack Surface: Outdated systems and fragmented infrastructure make it easier for malicious actors to exploit weaknesses.
o Potential Harm to Residents: Risks extend to personal and sensitive information held about residents.
o Regulatory and Reputational Impact: Non-compliance with statutory requirements and reputational damage were likely if risks were not mitigated.
o Financial Inefficiency: Lack of oversight and strategic direction will result in inefficient use of budgets and resources, and continued reliance on unsupported solutions.
o Service Failure: Failure to progress critical projects would result in continued poor customer experience and operational inefficiency.
o No Improvement Plan: Absence of a clear investment or improvement plan would prevent the Council from addressing technology debt and service failures.

• Conclusion: Given the audit evidence and regional context, maintaining the status quo was not a viable option. Proactive action was required to mitigate technology debt, strengthen cyber resilience, ensure financial and operational sustainability, and deliver reliable customer-facing services.

In respect of the Customer Strategy:-

RESOLVED that the Customer Strategy 2025-2028 be approved.  

RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL that the Customer Strategy 2025-2028 be included in the Council’s Policy Framework (alongside the Digital Strategy)

REASONS

The Customer Strategy 2025–2028 provided clarity and a unified direction for customer services across the Council, Colchester Borough Homes, and Amphora. It aligned with the Council’s priorities, ensures consistency in service delivery, and positions the organisation to meet future challenges, including Local Government Reorganisation, by delivering a resilient, customer-focused approach.

The strategy had been developed collaboratively with Colchester Borough Homes (CBH) and Amphora, reflecting shared principles and operational realities. It would be formally presented to both Boards for adoption in the new year, ensuring a joined-up and consistent approach across all partners.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The alternative would be to continue without a Customer Strategy. This would contribute to a fragmented approach across services, reduce efficiency, and limit the ability to meet rising customer expectations, modernise delivery, and prepare for future challenges such as Local Government Reorganisation.

The Chief Executive, Colchester Borough Homes, submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor J. Young, Portfolio Holder for Housing, introduced the report and stressed the value of the regular updates provided to Cabinet on housing issues, given the level of change and the number of policy initiatives from government.  Officers in the Council and Colchester Borough Homes had worked hard to get to grips with those changes and new requirements.  The need for temporary accommodation was putting great pressure on the Council, as with other authorities, and was a significant risk in budget setting.  This placed demands on the Council not just in finding accommodation but in supporting residents in troubled and difficult circumstances.

Councillor Pearson, Portfolio Holder for  Economic Growth and Transformation, stressed the vital work that the Council and Colchester Borough Homes did to support those who found themselves homeless. Colchester Borough Homes was now reporting to Governance and Audit Committee regularly, which enable the Council to monitor its work.  It was vital that the Council continued with its housing programmes.

RESOLVED that the report from the Chief Executive, Colchester Borough Homes, be noted.

REASONS

The report was for information only and did not require a decision 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

There were no alternative options of relevance to the report. 

The Head of Planning, Sustainability and Climate Change submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor Goacher attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet. The contents of the Joint Essex Air Quality Strategy were laudable and the aims it set out were welcomed, as was the evidence of a reduction in pollution in Brook Street and other areas of Colchester. However, there was a lack of specific targets setting out exactly how and to what levels pollution would be reduced or air quality improved.

Councillor Scordis, Portfolio Holder for Culture, Heritage and the Environment, explained that he raised similar concerns with Essex County Council and would continue to do so.  However, they had appointed a manager to specifically tackle this issue. In addition both the County and the City Council had effective Active Travel teams. 

Cabinet members expressed ongoing concern about air quality on Mersea Road and Brook Street and suggested further work on quick wins, such as tree planting, or better access to funding. 

Councillor Scordis explained that planting was unlikely to be feasible given the narrow width of the pavements in these locations.  He expected that a key function of the new manager at Essex County Council would be to seeking external funding for initiatives to improve air quality.  The City Council had worked hard to try and improve air quality through behaviour change following the declaration of the Climate Emergency and there was perhaps more that could be done to encourage this.  The Joint Strategy was a step in the right direction and it important the Council continued to influence Essex County Council on this issue. 

RESOLVED that the Joint Essex Air Quality Strategy be approved and adopted. 

REASONS

Colchester City Council had an up to date Air Quality Action Plan but lacked an overall Air Quality strategy. Officers supported all the aims and objectives of the Joint Air Quality strategy which closely align with the work the Council was already undertaking. Air Quality was a cross-district issue and collaborative working was needed to ensure maximum impact and efficient use of the collective resources available to address air pollution makes adoption of the joint strategy a practical and pragmatic approach. Working collaboratively, sharing best practice and resources had already commenced following thew delivery of five Defra funded air quality projects over the past seven years.  

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS  

The Council could choose to formally support or endorse the strategy instead.

Consideration was given to the nomination for the appointment of the Deputy Mayor of the City of Colchester for the 2026-27 municipal year.

Councillor Cufoglu attended remotely and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet.  He paid homage to Councillor Paul Smith who had held the position of Leader of the Council between 2015-2018.  If elected, Councillor Smith would make an excellent Deputy Mayor and Mayor, and would turn the Town Hall into a warm and welcoming place for everyone.  However, he wished to nominate Coucilor Mark Goacher for the appointment of the Deputy Mayor of the City of Colchester for the 2026-27 municipal year. The Greens had been on the Council for 6 years and he was grateful for the respect and sympathy Councillor Goacher continued to receive from cross-party colleagues.

The Green Group had proactively collaborated with other groups, including acting as a reliable ally and supporting the Liberal Democrat minority administration and continued to support the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition in good faith and a friendly manner. They  provided constructive feedback and, along with the Conservative colleagues, continue to serve as critical friends. Since the Council may cease to exist soon and that Castle Ward was an unparished part of Colchester, having a Green Deputy Mayor and Mayor, and especially a respected and impartial figure such as Councillor Goacher would be a token of recognition and appreciation towards the Green group for years-long support.

Having a Castle Ward councillor as Colchester’s last mayor would also be special. This ward included the Town Hall and many of Colchester’s historic and administrative buildings. Having a deputy mayor from Castle Ward would be a historic nod and showcase the shared compassion for Colchester’s culture and history. The Council already had had senior councillors from all parties as deputy mayors and mayors, except the Green group.  If other groups would endorse Councillor Goacher’s nomination and candidacy, it would be another unique act from the Council, which would be rooted in compassion and solidarity across party politics. The last year of Colchester City Council would be historically significant and this would be an opportunity to do something different.

Councillor J. Young, Deputy Leader of the Council, noted that there had been previous Mayors who had served Castle ward. The nomination for Deputy Mayor was normally done based on length of service to the authority and rotation between the political groups.  Councillor Paul Smith had twenty-two years’ service, and there were several other Councillors with approximately twenty years.  Councillor Smith would make a good Deputy Mayor and Mayor.

Councillor Goss reiterated that the long-standing convention was the nomination was made based on length of service and rotation between the groups, together with willingness to serve as Mayor. On the basis of the usual convention, he was delighted to nominate Councillor Paul Smith as the nominee for the appointment of the Deputy Mayor of the City of Colchester for the 2026-27 municipal year.  It would be for Full Council to take the final decision. 

Councillors King and Cory also expressed their support for proceeding with the usual convention and for the nomination of Councillor Smith.  However, it was stressed that it did not imply any disrespect for Councillor Goacher’s service and qualities.  It was also hoped that the arrangements for the final year of Colchester City Council might include some new arrangements.

Following his nomination, Councillor Smith expressed his thanks to Cabinet for the honour of the nomination for appointment as Deputy Mayor .  This would have been  greatly appreciated by previous Mayors who had represented St Annes and St Johns ward. He also expressed his thanks to the Green group and indicated that he understood their position. 

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that Councillor Paul Smith be nominated for appointment as the Deputy Mayor of the City of Colchester for the 2026-27 municipal year.

REASONS

The nomination of Councillor Smith for the appointment of the Deputy Mayor of the City of Colchester for the 2026-27 municipal year was in line with the usual convention for the  nomination of Deputy Mayors.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

To make a nomination that did not follow the usual convention. 

The Democratic Services Manager submitted a progress sheet a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

RESOLVED that the contents of the Progress Sheet be noted.

REASONS

The progress sheet was a mechanism by which the Cabinet could ensure that public statements and questions were responded to appropriately and promptly. 
 
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

No alternative options were presented to the Cabinet. 

The Cabinet resolved under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements)(Meetings and Access to Information)(England) Regulations 2012 to exclude the public from the meeting for the following item as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972. 

This minute is not for publication as it contains exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.