Meeting Details

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 10 December 2025 be confirmed as a correct record.

Christopher Lee addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to ask the following questions:-

• Had the Heart of Greenstead funding been secured before the 31 March deadline for the Town Deal fund?
• Did that funding require misappropriation from the Pride in Place fund?
• If so, how would that be achieved before 31 March?
• In view of Pride in Place guidance, when would the Council open the process for nominations from residents for the Chair of the Neighbourhood Board?
• Did Greenstead residents need the Council’s permission to create the Neighbourhood Board.
• When would the Council receive the capacity funding to begin the process of engaging with residents?

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded to explain that more than one stream of funding was being used for Heart of Greenstead.  The Town Deal was the main source, but the City Council and Essex County Council were also providing funding.  Pride in Place funding was for a different set of purposes but it seemed common sense to seek to use it to support the subsequent phases of the Heart of Greenstead project and the Council would try and bring the two together. the Council would seek to play an active role with Pride in Place as the funding would be streamed through the Council.  The Council would underwrite the balance that was required to ensure the project met the expectations of residents, and it was hoped that agreement for funding could be reached with the Neighbourhood Board in due course. In terms of capacity funding, this had now been received. He would provide a written response to confirm the position.

Nick Chilvers addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) about the proposed upgrade to city centre car parks. Would work to increase the number of larger bays in St Marys and St Johns car parks be completed before the closure of Britannia car park?   How many spaces would be lost at St Marys and St Johns by the creation of larger bays? This would need to be seen in the context of the loss of spaces by the closure of Britannia car park. Usage of St Mary and St Johns had fallen because people preferred single level open plan car parks where there was less chance of minor accidents. Butt Road and Napier Road car parks were not practical alternatives. Research should be undertaken to see how the other car parks would be affected. It needed to be recognised that a car was a considerable investment that people wanted to use. Town centre businesses needed to attract customers and the Council needed the car parking income. Nothing should be assumed. Reassurance provided to residents and messaging should be more direct. 

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure, responded and explained considerable work had been done on customer attitudes towards parking during development of the Parking Strategy.  Of the £881,000 budget for the upgrade,  £469,000 for improvements were being funded in phase 1 including concrete repairs and waterproofing. St Marys Phase 1 was complete, and St Johns would be completed by Easter.  Wider bays were part of phase 2. Work would be completed before Britannia car park closed. The number of bays lost would depend on the final design which was being worked on currently. This would need to take account of the trend towards heavier cars. The wider bays would assist any size of vehicle. All bays in Priory Street were already of a larger size and all car parks would be laid out with larger bays in due course. St Marys remained well used and it was hoped that improvements to the entrance at St Johns would improve usage there. The works were driven by customer feedback.  The replacement of car parking in Britannia was part of the Local Plan. He did not support removing large car parks without replacing them. Car parking was needed alongside other strategies such as public transport and cycling. However, there was considerable space in public car parks in the city centre during the week due to changes in working patterns following the pandemic. 

Edward Barratt addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1).  The developer of the ABRO site had indicated they were in a position to make a start on the development and had brought forward plans for demolition and archaeological investigation.  As part of these works they would be undertaking trenching work for sewers.  In December 2025 local residents had made available to the Council an independent arboricultural report which explained that the proposed sewer route would pass through the root protection area of two protected trees, a London Plane Tree and a Lime Tree.  What steps was the Cabinet taking to protect these trees. The Planning Inspector had identified a need for the trees to be protected and stressed the contribution they made to the conservation area. Were the conditions imposed by the Inspector being actively enforced in relation to these trees?

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Sustainable Development, responded and explained that she had referred this issue to the relevant Planning Manager and would arrange for his comments to be forwarded.  Any archaeological and below-ground works associated with the development carried out by the developer would require approval from the Local Planning Authority. To obtain this, the relevant information would need to be submitted to and would be reviewed by the local planning authority and their consultees, as part of a submission of details application. Any approved works would then need to adhere to the approved details. If a breach of the approved details occurred, the Council would take the necessary action.  The Council’s Planning Enforcement Team were aware of the site having already carried out investigations pertaining to works in the vicinity. If it was suspected that works are taking place without the correct permissions, residents should contact Planning Enforcement.  Building control processes should also offer some protection.


Sir Bob Russell addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to express his concern that although significant resources had been devoted to tackling anti-social behaviour, it remained a significant problem.  In this context it was a concern that the proposals to remove the railings at Holy Trinity churchyard could create a new anti-social behaviour hotspot. Forty years ago, the Council had reinstated the railings to prevent anti-social behaviour and the proposed removal of them now was irresponsible and a waste of public resources.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and emphasised that considerable effort had been made to tackle anti-social behaviour. Holy Trinity Church was in a very poor condition and the aim of the work to the churchyard was to make an open and accessible space, but with some safeguards.  Whilst it was appreciated there was a risk of some anti-social behaviour, it was anticipated that its accessibility may reduce the risk. The city centre was benefitting significantly from the Town Deal investment. 

Councillor Scordis, Portfolio Holder for Heritage, Culture and the Environment, and Councillor Law, Portfolio Holder for Communities and Public Protection, also responded.   There were considerable heritage benefits from the improvements.  The proximity of the site to the newly refurbished library may also discourage anti-social behaviour. The new neighbourhood policing model was helping to address anti-social behaviour and it was also a priority for the Crime and Disorder Partnership. They would ensure that the site was monitored. 

The Strategic Housing Lead submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Panel at its meeting on 27 January 2026. 

Councillor J. Young, Portfolio Holder for Housing, introduced the report and thanked the officers who had worked on the revised Business Plan, and also Savills for their contribution. The Business Plan set out how the Council would manage, maintain and invest in Colchester’s council housing over the next 30 years.  It had been considered by both Governance and Audit Committee and Scrutiny Panel. It underpinned the council’s duty to ensure that every resident lived in a safe, decent and energy efficient home. The updated plan reflected national policy changes, the government’s budget, updated stock data and new financial assumptions.  Despite a challenging financial environment, the plan maintained financial sustainability, kept reserves at a safe level and would fund the required investment in housing stock. The proposed rent increase would stabilise the HRA and protect essential services.  Borrowing costs had risen across the sector and therefore the plan assumed higher future interest rates. The commitment to improving energy efficiency was also strengthened which would reduce energy bills for tenants and meet regulatory standards. The plan also supported an ambitious acquisitions programme which would help reduce the number of families in temporary accommodation.  The investment programme would be maintained at a level consistent with sector benchmarks and delivery costs had been reduced through efficiencies at Colchester Borough Homes.  The plan would ensure the council continued to meet the Decent Homes standard. Some risks remained, particularly around the costs of borrowing and therefore reserves had been increased to a minimum of 10% of turnover. Tenant voices continued to shape the plan and there had been over 200 responses to the surveys and focus groups on the plan, and based on this investment in day-to-day services and repairs had been protected. The plan supported the Council’s wider goals of tackling inequality, improving wellbeing and providing the homes residents deserved. It was a live document which would need to respond to government changes and there had been two announcements today which would have an impact: one on decent homes and one on rent convergence.  

Philip Sullivan, Strategic Housing Lead and Chief Executive of Colchester Borough homes, was invited to address Cabinet, on the two announcements by government.  He explained that the government had announced that, through Rent Convergence, it would increase the level by which rents could be increased in future years by an extra £1 per week from April 2027 and £2 per week from April 2028. It would be a decision for the Council as to whether this should be adopted, but it could have a significant positive impact on the plan. The other announcement related to updates to the Decent Homes standard and Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard.  The impact of these changes will be considered by officers and any implications would inform the next iteration of the plan.


Cabinet considered the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Panel. In respect of recommendation (a) Cabinet considered that more should be made of the wider impact and social good that resulted from providing safe and decent homes to residents. It was appropriate to raise awareness of the advantages of developing housing and officers were asked to amend both the plan and the budget to emphasise this. This needed to be seen in the context of the number of families in temporary accommodation, which was still increasing, and the impact this had on their quality of life and life chances. 

In respect of recommendation (b) , Cabinet considered the plan was based on an appropriate judgement of relative risk and that risk and viability would continue to be considered as the plan was regularly reviewed in future. The recommendation did not require formal action at this stage but should be noted. 

In respect of recommendation (c), which related to Heart of Greenstead, any proposition brought forward in respect of the project would be firmly tested to ensure it provided value for money. Cabinet was content that appropriate processes were in place and that the recommendation should be noted. 

RESOLVED that:

(a) The updated Revenue Account Business Plan 2026 to 2056 as set out at Appendix 1 to the report by the Strategic Housing Lead be approved subject to the addition of text to emphasise the wider value that resulted from the work that was funded by the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan.  

(b) Recommendations (b) and (c) from the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 27 January 2026 be noted. 

REASONS

The HRA Business Plan provided the Council’s strategic financial plan for managing and maintaining the Council’s social housing stock. It set out in detail the short to medium term plans and priorities for housing and asset management services (5 years) and included a long term (30 year) forecast on stock investment and financial planning.

The Business Plan was kept under regular review to ensure that it remained up to date and fit for purpose.  The draft updated Plan reflected the Council’s obligation to ensure homes are decent, safe and meet regulatory and legislative requirements. To not agree the updated Plan could lead to the Council’s stock not being fit for purpose, reputational damage, regulatory intervention and additional disrepair claims.  

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

To continue with the existing Plan but this update took account of the current and forecast financial operating environment in which the Council delivers its social housing activity.   

Cabinet considered the motion from Full Council on 4 December 2025 on the Domestic Abuse Housing Covenant for Colchester, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.  

Councillor J. Young, Portfolio Holder for Housing, explained that the Council already had a number of initiatives in place to address the issues raised in the motion.  These included:

• Domestic Abuse (DA) Champions Network embedded within Council services.
• DAHA accreditation work underway at CBH, supported by specialist role.
• Community Safety Partnership (CSP) work with Next Chapter, Essex Police, health partners, and landlord forums.
• Domestic Abuse Safe Accommodation Grant funding extended to enable two days per week for domestic abuse work by a Council member of staff and to support Next Chapter’s resettlement officer role.
• The following external funding streams had been identified: Home Office Flexible Fund, Dormant Assets Scheme, PFCC Community Safety Development Fund.

However, the following were not yet in place:-

• Formalised Single Point of Entry (SPOE) hosted within CBH Housing Solutions and linked to domestic abuse partners.
• Rental Guarantee Pilot (design and funding model).
• Fully integrated Financial Inclusion Pathway (credit repair, debt advice, budgeting).
• Extension of Domestic Abuse Champions Network to CBH front-line teams with DAHA aligned curriculum.
• Lived experience advisory panel and annual reporting framework.
• Blended funding plan mapping existing funding sources with external sources.
• Covenant Delivery Group under the Community Safety Partnership with Terms of Reference and KPIs.
Colchester Borough Homes had the following in place to support delivery of the motion:

• Extended the current resource for DAHA accreditation by three months to progress the above.
• Reviewed opportunities within the new housing prevention grant for 2026/27 for domestic abuse support/resourcing.

The following actions were being taken forward by Colchester Borough Homes and the Council in partnership:

A meeting with relevant colleagues had been organised for the end January, to discuss requirements and next steps, which would include:

1. A gap analysis jointly between CBH, the Council and the Community Safety Partnership to determine opportunities and areas for focus.
2. To determine additional funding requirements and understand the opportunities for external funding but also further work with partner agencies/charities such as  Next Chapter
3. Draft a delivery plan that leverages existing networks and resources.

In discussion Cabinet members thanked Councillors Rippingale and Osborne for bringing forward the motion and for highlighting this very serious issue.  The need to ensure that support was provided for victims of all genders and from all types of relationships was stressed, as was the need to ensure parental abuse was addressed. It was also important to recognise that the Council had to work within its existing resources, and it could not solely resolve all issues relating to domestic abuse in Colchester. 

Cabinet requested that briefing note be circulated to all members highlighting what action had been taken to date and what future action was planned. 

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The motion on the Domestic Abuse Housing Covenant for Colchester be approved and adopted. 

(b) The actions taken to date and those planned should be noted and a briefing note be circulated to all members. 

REASONS

Cabinet supported the motion and recognised the Council needed to do what it could within its resources to address the issue.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Not to approve and adopt the motion.

The Section 151 Officer submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with the recommendations from the Scrutiny Panel at its meeting on 27 January 2026.

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Assets, introduced the report and thanked the Section 151 Officer and her team for their work in bringing forward the draft budget.  The draft budget had been brough forward earlier which had enabled earlier scrutiny of the proposals.  The details of the Fair Funding Review by government had now been received and this had been slightly more generous than had been anticipated. An initial budget gap of £3.3 million had ben identified, but a number of savings had been identified through the use of budget squads across the Council’s services.  These had been rated on a RAG system  As a result of the Fair Funding Review settlement it was not necessary to proceed with all the savings identified. Some of the savings proposed would involve some job losses.  The budget gap had also been addressed through increasing income and through generating capital receipts, particularly through the asset disposal plan. 

The Medium Term Financial Forecast (MTFF) went beyond the local government reorganisation settlement and into the period of the new unitary authority. It was important that the Council was in a robust financial position as it went into the new structure. The draft budget also included the capital programme for the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account, the proposed fees and charges, together with the Treasury Management Strategy and the Capital Strategy. The Supplementary Agenda contained an update to the Treasury Management Strategy.  However, this did not change the overall figures in the MTFF.  

The proposals had been subject to rigorous scrutiny by the Scrutiny Panel. Most of the issues raised through scrutiny had been addressed and the Panel had been reassured that the administration was confident the budget was deliverable and was robust.  There was significant contingency identified in case not all savings could be delivered. The budget proposals would enable the Council to deliver services to the standard residents expected, whilst delivering some new programmes, such as improvements to play parks and refurbishment to key buildings. 

Councillor Dundas attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet. This was a historic budget as it was the last one of which the Council was in full control of, given the local government reorganisation process. The previous year’s budget had led to an overspend which was currently £6.8 million. This was a huge variance, and the Council could not afford to repeat this.  The proposed budget was based on a narrow path and a number of assumptions which all had to be correct.  There had been no proper analysis of risks and no proper sensitivity analysis. The savings targets were extremely ambitious, and a number were increased income rather than savings. The direction of travel of some elements of the proposals was welcomed, such as the disposal programme.  However the timescale seemed ambitious. It seemed some assumptions were made to make the budget work, and the Council could not afford to keep getting its budgeting and assumptions wrong. Better understanding of risks and the sensitivity to changes in assumptions was needed. 

Councillor Cory responded and explained that in terms of the savings, cross disciplinary teams had undertaken considerable work to examine the savings proposals and to ensure they were as robust as possible. There would doubtless be some variance but £1 million of contingency was in place to cover this.  The Council had considerable experience of maintaining the quality of services in the face of constrained budgets. He was confident that the budget could be delivered and that the proposed savings overall were realistic. There were good reasons why reserves had been applied to last year’s budget. 

Anna D’Alessandro, Section 151 Officer, was also invited to respond. The £6.8 million figure was incorrect as it was a gross figure.  The position had changed for the better and the position at Quarter 9 was now a small surplus. A variance did not mean that the budget was incorrect.  Sensitivity analysis took place continually, but it was not necessary to include all this analysis within the budget report. The budget was based on a series of tried and tested best assumptions which were as robust as they could be. 

In discussion Cabinet members highlighted the following aspects of the proposed draft budget:-

• In view of Local Government Reorganisation, there was a limited opportunity for the Council as currently constituted to continue to deliver its excellent services. The budget would provide for this.
• The links between the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan and the General Fund budget, as encapsulated by paragraph 4.18 of the Treasury Management Strategy and the importance of the provision of housing to those in temporary accommodation.
• The Heart of Greenstead project was a wider regeneration project and its viability would be examined in the same way that any project would be, but it was important that it was quantified in this budget. It needed to be recognised that Greenstead was one of most disadvantaged communities in the region and this needed to be addressed.
• Each political group would produce a budget differently based on its political perspectives. However the Leader had worked hard over recent years to bring all groups together in the budget setting process.  Many of the challenges and queries raised by the opposition had been taken on.
• The contribution of the Section 151 Officer and her team in bringing clarity to the budget and budget setting process. 
• The need to ensure that key services were protected and would go into the new unitary authority in a strong position. 
• Public consultation with residents and businesses on the budget proposals had been undertaken. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked Cabinet members for their comments. The draft budget would go forward to Full Council, although some amendments to the proposals may be necessary to take account of factors such as adjustments to the final settlement from government and further information such as the amended table from the Treasury Management Strategy in the Supplementary Information. 

RESOLVED that the following be agreed and be RECOMMENDED to FULL COUNCIL that:-

(a) The General Fund and Housing Revenue Account (HRA) revenue budgets for 2025/26 as presented in Appendix A (Annex 5 and 7) to the report of the Section 151 Officer be approved. 

(b) The draft General Fund and HRA capital programmes for 2026/27 to 2030/31 as presented in Appendix A (Annex 4 and 6) to the report of the Section 151 Officer be approved. 

(c) The draft Fees and Charges for 2025/26 as presented in Appendix A (Annex 3) to the report of the Section 151 Officer be approved. 

(d) The updated General Fund and HRA Medium-Term Financial Forecasts (MTFF) for 2025/26 to 2029/30 as presented in Appendix A (Annex 5 and 9) to the report of the Section 151 Officer  be approved. 

(e) The Section 151 Officer’s report – in accordance with Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003 – on the robustness of estimates for the purposes of the Council’s 2025/26 budgets and the adequacy of the reserves, presented in Attachment A to the report of the Section 151 Officer, be noted. 

(f) The Section 151 Officer’s recommendation to maintain a minimum £3.5 million contingency balance in the Council’s General Fund Reserve be approved.

(g) The Treasury Management Strategy 2026/27 considered by the Governance and  Audit Committee on 20th January 2026, presented in Appendix B to the report of the Section 151 Officer and as updated in the Supplementary Agenda, be approved.

(h) The Capital Strategy 2026/27 at Appendix C to the report of the Section 151 Officer be approved.

(i) The recommendation from the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 27 January 2026 be noted.

REASONS

The reasons for the proposals were set out in detail in the draft budget and appendices.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The proposals in the Section 151 Officer’s report 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 People submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy and Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Assets, introduced the report and highlighted the importance of the Council being seen as a good employer and ensuring its pay policy was in line with good practice. This was demonstrated by its commitment to paying the Living Wage. The Council also had a positive gender pay balance. 

In terms of overall staff numbers, a report would be submitted to Cabinet in due course setting out the Council’s approach and commitment to joint working. This prevented duplication and overlap.  The Council had considerable experience of joint working and its benefits through the North Essex Parking Partnership.  This also meant that the Council’s workforce appeared slightly larger than other comparable authorities. 

RECOMMENDED to FULL COUNCIL that the Officer Pay Policy Statement 2026/27 be approved and adopted.

REASONS

The Localism Act required “authorities to prepare, approve and publish pay policy statements articulating their policies towards a range of issues relating to the pay of its workforce, which must be approved by full Council annually. An authority’s pay policy statement must be approved by a resolution of that authority before it comes into force.” 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The only alternative would be to not recommend the approval of the Pay Policy Statement, but that would be contrary to the requirements of the Localism Act. 

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.

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.

RESOLVED that the not for publication extract from the minutes of the meeting on 10 December 2025 be confirmed as a correct record.