Meeting Details

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings held on 28 January 2026 and 3 February 2026 be confirmed as a correct record. 

Amanda Gilmour of Colchester Canoe Club addressed the Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to thank Council officers for their recent constructive, collaborative work regarding the River Colne and the situation at Middle Mill. Thanks were also due to Councillor King for taking time to understand how the club operated, its safety framework, and the community benefits of paddlesports, and for helping to find a practical long-term way forward. The Canoe Club had been part of the City for decades and was entirely volunteer led. It aimed to make paddlesports accessible to the community so residents could take part in a healthy outdoor activity on their local river. It was had a development plan looking at working with schools to introduce young people to the river and explaining opportunities to take part in paddlesports. It had a well attended junior development session and had published its own junior coaching framework for which it was seeking national accreditation. It had operated on this stretch of the river Colne for 47 years and would welcome the Council formally recognising the club as the site operator for this reach. The Council’s offer to assist with removing accumulated silt from the lido pool and the potential use of the compound area near the cricket club were welcomed.  The club looked forward to continuing to work with the council so paddlesports could remain a positive and sustainable part of community life in Colchester.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked the speaker for her comments and the club’s patience whilst issues were resolved. The Canoe Club did great work creating a sense of community and providing opportunities for exercise. It was appreciated that the club had a difficult time since the collapse of the weir, but it was hoped that it was now in a position to move forward and secure its future. 

Michael Fitt of Colchester Civic Society addressed the Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1).  Members of the Civic Society were in favour of seeing the weir rebuilt.  A weir had been in the same location for nearly 1000 years and the banks and wildlife were well established.  Changes could have serious physical and financial consequences. The weir also attracted visitors and sightseers. If the weir was not rebuilt it would have consequences for the Cymbeline Meadows River Restoration Project and for the future of properties along the riverbanks.  The river had also provided the water for the boating lake and the reinstatement of the weir would allow this valuable asset to return to use.  The slabs and brickwork of the boating lake were in good condition and only required resealing. The amount of water required fell below the level that would require a licence for extraction from the Environment Agency.  Whether or not the weir was rebuilt, the boating lake must remain and consideration could be given to a pump, powered by the water flow, to fill the lake.  Reinstating the weir would save future expenditure due to collapsing banks and provide water to retain the lake and improve the attractiveness of the area.

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Environment and Leisure, responded and explained that many of these issues would be picked up when Cabinet debated the issue.  However, it was necessary to appreciate that the Environment Agency was an important stakeholder on this issue, both in terms of licensing and in assessing flood risk across the entirety of the river. In reaching its decision the Cabinet would need to consider the impact on riverside properties and their ability to secure insurance in the future but also financial implications. 

Councillor Goacher addressed the Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1).  He had seen the recent press release on the bus station and welcomed the work to look at the provision of a better facility. He requested that the Green Group be involved in any discussions, as they were the ward councillors for the city centre.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, undertook to keep ward members sighted as matters developed.

The Managing Director of Amphora Group and the Council’s Strategic Director submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with draft minute 552 from the Governance and Audit Committee meeting of 3 March 2026.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, introduced the report and stressed the importance of Colchester Commercial (Holdings) Ltd and its subsidiary companies.  They provided excellent services and generated considerable income.  The visitors attracted to Colchester through its events made a valuable contribution to the local economy.  

The proposals in the report had ben subject to considerable discussion at the Governance and Audit Committee at its meeting on 3 March. Since then further consideration had been given to the proposals and it was considered that making CCHL subject to oversight by both the Scrutiny Panel and the Governance and Audit Committee was unnecessary duplication.  It was therefore proposed to remove the proposals to amend the terms of reference of the Scrutiny Panel and to keep the oversight function with the Governance and Audit Committee.

It was also suggested that the recommended decision should also reflect the new name of CCHL as Amphora Services Ltd.

RESOLVED that the Group Governance Agreement be amended and  recommendation b made to Full Council in respect of the terms of reference for Governance and Audit Committee to reflect the changes set out in below.

Amphora Services Ltd Board

(a) The Amphora Services Ltd Board be amended to add a paid independent Non-Executive Director (NED) as Chair. The Board will also include the existing four Shareholder (Council) NEDs, and the Managing Director. The Shareholder NEDs should avoid any conflicts with their role in the Council, including any involvement in Governance and Audit Committee.

(b) The Group Governance Agreement be amended so that any requirements for Council approval upon Amphora Services Ltd matters are also applied as requirements in relation to its subsidiaries. A matrix of key activities and proposed oversight is included as Appendix A to the report by the Managing Director of Amphora Group and the Council’s Strategic Director

Council Oversight

(c) RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL that the terms of reference of the Governance and Audit Committee be amended in respect of oversight of Amphora Services Ltd to continue in its advisory role to Cabinet in having oversight of business plans and performance for Amphora Services Ltd but to include a focus on governance (including audit and accounts), risk, and controls.  In line with the legal position to also clarify that the role of Shareholder Committee for Amphora Services Ltd rests with Cabinet, not Governance and Audit Committee. 

(d) The use of Leadership (Informal Cabinet) meetings be extended to include time for senior officers and members to debate strategic matters relating to Amphora Services Ltd, in addition to the existing use to discuss matters requiring Cabinet approval.

REASONS

Adding an independent Chair would move Amphora Services Ltd closer to recommended good practice. This step was recommended in a previous CIPFA review of the company.

The recommended changes to the terms of reference of the Governance and Audit Committee would move them in line with what was typically found in local authorities in England and also mirror their scope in relation to general matters for the Council. 

Oversight by both the Scrutiny Panel and the Governance and Audit Committee would be unnecessary duplication.

It was important to demonstrate better governance to other local authorities forming part of a new Unitary council with Colchester, ahead of the upcoming Local Government Reorganisation.

Formally changing Directors’ powers so that key decisions relating to subsidiaries were no longer ambiguous on whether Cabinet approval was required.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

An alternative was considered whereby the sole change was for an independent Chair of the Board, which was recently discussed at CCHL Board. This was a positive step but the wider proposal in the report was considered preferable for the reasons set out.

An alternative to the recommendation in resolution (e) was considered, where an Investment Sub Committee would be set up, with delegated powers from Cabinet for matters relating to Amphora Services Ltd. This was rejected as it was felt that the existing Officer Shareholder Committee and Leadership (informal Cabinet) meetings could provide for additional time to debate strategic matters relating to Amphora Services Ltd prior to any formal decisions taken at Cabinet, along with pre-Scrutiny should that be deemed necessary. 

Cabinet considered the recommendations in draft minute 554 of the Governance and Audit Committee meeting of 3 March 2026, a copy of which had been circulated to each member.  Cabinet also had before it the report of the Managing Director of Amphora Group and the Council’s Strategic Director considered by Governance and Audit Committee on 3 March 2026. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, introduced the report  The proposals sought to ensure that the Council’s commercial companies operated in a tax efficient way, and would draw a distinction between the services it performed for the Council and its commercial operations. The proposals had been subject to detailed consideration by the Governance and Audit Committee. 

RESOLVED that:-

(a) Amphora Services Ltd (ASL) be set up, utilising hibernated business CAEL (Colchester Amphora Energy Ltd), utilising expert legal advice and guidance.

(b) Amphora’s Governance Framework documents, including associated Articles of Association for AHL (Amphora Holdings Ltd), ASL (Amphora Services Ltd) and ATL (Amphora Trading Ltd), be revised utilising expert legal advice and guidance.

(c) Mutual trading status for Amphora Services Ltd be secured, utilising expert tax advice and guidance. 

REASONS

It was important that Amphora Group and Companies created the right Group/Company structure that retained Teckal compliance and delivered effective tax mitigation.

The proposed changes prepared Amphora for the future opportunities that would result from devolution and local government reform/reorganisation i.e., ‘fit for the future.’

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

External legal advice was sought to identify potential solutions for Amphora.

These options included:
• Reactivating CAEL to form a revised Teckal company (preferred option due to simplicity, cost effectiveness, and strong governance alignment)
• Retaining the existing structure (rejected due to compliance and tax efficiency risks)
• Creating a new company from scratch (rejected due to additional cost and time)

The Strategic Lead for Housing and Chief Executive of 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.  The proposals in the report would ensure that the housing needs of residents continued to be met through the period of Local Government Reorganisation by extending Colchester Borough Homes Management Agreement for five years.  This would provide continuity in housing services and provide reassurance to staff. It would also allow the unitary authority to concentrate on the delivery of other services such as Adult Social Care. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, emphasised the excellent service provided by Colchester Borough Homes, which was making a real difference to residents.

RESOLVED that:-

(a) Colchester Borough Homes’ Management Agreement be extended by five years to 2033 as supported by the Colchester Borough Homes Board, Senior Leadership Board and the Portfolio Holder for Housing and that the arrangements be shared with partner authorities which will comprise the new unitary Council.

(b) The remainder of the report be noted.  

REASONS

To enable a smooth transition of Council housing services into the future Unitary Council ensuring risks were managed, regulatory standards adhered to and resident services were seamlessly and effectively delivered.   

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Alternative housing delivery models were referred to in the report by the Strategic Lead for Housing and Chief Executive of Colchester Borough Homes. However, no recommendation was made in respect of the long-term position as this was a decision to be taken by the new unitary authority.

The Strategic Lead for Housing and Chief Executive of 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 which included updates on several topical housing related issues.  These included rent convergence, which would strengthen the Housing Revenue Account and reduce the need for borrowing, and the new approach to section 106 agreements, which would provide more flexibility to renegotiate agreements where houses could not be sold.  Demand for homelessness services remained very high, although initiatives such as Beyond the Box were helping the Council address this.  Despite national pressures the Council’s financial position and stock levels remained comparatively strong. Thanks were expressed to Colchester Borough Homes’ housing team for their work in tackling the most important issue facing the Council.  A recent survey on the Management Fee had shown that tenants valued the work of Colchester Borough Homes.  Going forward, safety, particularly in communal areas, would be a key issue, and the Council was committed to looking at this. 

In discussion Cabinet members stressed the importance of housing in shaping residents’ life chances and concern was expressed that 500 families were in temporary accommodation.  It was hoped that changes in government policy on Right to Buy would help tackle homelessness as less housing stock would be sold. The Council was committed to a programme of acquisitions and improvements.  However the trend nationally was of increasing homelessness, and it was important to engage with central government for further support.  Some concern was expressed about whether the Energy Efficiency Standards would be met given the condition of some of the housing stock. 

Councillor  J. Young explained that there was a national focus on children in temporary accommodation and strict targets had been introduced to ensure that children were in bed and breakfast accommodation for no longer than six weeks. In terms of energy targets, 90% of Council’s homes were rated EPC C or better and further investment was committed to address this issue.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

REASONS

The report provided an update on a range of topical housing issues, to ensure Cabinet was well informed.  However, it required no action by Cabinet. 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

No alternative options were proposed to Cabinet. 

The Strategic Director submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

RESOLVED that authority be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Housing for the award of the contracts for works within the Housing Investment Programme 2026/27.

REASONS

Within the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), the Council owned 6,000 affordable homes, benefitting people in need of social housing. The housing stock was managed through an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO), Colchester Borough Homes (CBH) and each year a number of maintenance contracts are managed within an agreed Housing Investment Programme. This keeps these homes in a suitable condition, as part of an ongoing planned approach set from the HRA Asset Management Strategy and 30-year HRA Business Plan.

Contracts due to expire over the next year required new contracts to be procured and awarded for the Housing Investment Programme in 2026/27. These were contracts that were likely to require Cabinet approval due to estimated costs (over £500k for the scope of the contracts, over multiple years) and city-wide span.

The decision to delegate authority to the Portfolio Holder for Housing to approve the award of these contracts, as they arise, would make those awards smoother and faster if they arose between Cabinet meetings scheduled for the next year, or during the pre-election period. This avoided delays in the delivery of improvements for tenants. A similar decision was taken in the last five years and had demonstrated the success and benefit of this approach in past/current contract awards.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Not to delegate the powers requested; but this would then need contracts to be individually reported to Cabinet for each contract award increasing the time and resourcing required, for a procurement process that was already heavily scrutinised and regulated. This would delay the start of contracts, and therefore the improvements to homes for tenants, whilst waiting for a Cabinet meeting to arise. The time/benefit balance would therefore suggest that delegation to the Portfolio Holder for Housing would be more effective and efficient use of Council resources, without introducing risks; demonstrated by recent practices. The Portfolio Holder decisions would remain available for call-in should individual concerns arise.

The Head of Public Protection submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The Council enter into the ‘Procurement for Housing’ Framework.

(b) A 4-year contract to be awarded to Stannah Lift Services under the Procurement for Housing Framework for both General Fund and Housing Revenue Account installations under a combined agreement to provide a consistent service for all residents across Colchester for the Period 1st April 2026 to 31st March 2030.

REASONS

Under the Council’s constitution contracts with a value of over £500,000 required Cabinet approval unless otherwise delegated. Although the Housing Revenue Account contract awards had been delegated the Disabled Facilities Grants in the general fund had not.

Since 2017, the Council and Colchester Borough Homes had been operating under the PfH Framework which was now due for renewal. Stannah had been reliable and responsive to the Council’s requirements, and the framework contract also allowed the Council to use alternative contractors if Stannah were unable to provide a specific lift as required by the specification. 

The PfH Framework had reduced the time taken to approve essential stairlift equipment into residents’ home by only requiring a quote from a single supplier. This supported both Social Care and the NHS budgets by maximising residents’ independence and reducing risks that could lead to admissions through trips or falls or increasing the cost of care packages. 

Stannah Lift Services had demonstrated their ability to deliver a fast service which was an important consideration when carrying out adaptation works. Stannah were well-known and recognised in the supply and installation of stairlifts and offered a 24-hour 365 day a year repair service.

It was therefore prudent to continue with a specialist contractor in place to facilitate the delivery of Disabled Facilities Grant projects and adaptations to Council owned properties.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Offer an open tender and award. Engaging in an open tender in normal circumstances allowed for wider competition but as stairlift contractors were fairly specialised this may not be the best route. This process could also take considerable time to administer and reach contract award. 

Multiple bids/tenders for each individual application. Seeking at least two quotes for each application and awarding to the cheapest. This process was known to take longer and increased the time to process applications.

Continue to operate with two separate contracts for the general fund and housing revenue account, but this did not offer best value to the Council.

The Chief Operating Officer submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with draft minute 558 of the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 22 January 2026.

Councillor Pearson, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, introduced the report and thanked the officer team who managed the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) framework.  The proposals had been considered by the Scrutiny Panel.  The KPI framework was aligned with the Strategic Plan. 

The KPI Framework for 2026-27 proposed separating targeted KPIs and monitoring KPIs.  Targeted KPIs would have explicit performance expectations and would drive change whilst monitoring KPIs would be used for trend analysis and assurance.  Overall this approach would help drive performance. 

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The Corporate KPI Framework for 2026-2027, as set out in Appendix A of the Chief Operating Officer’s report, be approved.

(b) The approach of formally separating targeted KPIs from monitoring KPIs within all future performance reporting be endorsed.

(c) Explanatory context be provided in all reports to clarify the purpose and interpretation of monitoring KPIs.

REASONS

The recommended approach would create a robust framework for monitoring corporate performance and address feedback on distinguishing targeted KPIs from monitoring KPIs. Scrutiny and Senior Leadership Board emphasised the need for clear context to prevent confusion with a larger set of KPIs, especially those without targets, while supporting the continued use of monitoring KPIs in reporting.

Clearly separating targeted and monitoring KPIs and explaining them in reports would enhance transparency, enable informed scrutiny, and improve assurance, whilst maintaining comprehensive information for Members.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Removing monitoring KPIs from the framework: This was rejected as it would reduce the Council’s ability to identify emerging risks and provide comprehensive oversight.

Retain the previous reporting format without further clarification: This was rejected as it would not address the concerns raised by Senior Leadership Board and Scrutiny regarding transparency and the interpretation of Council performance. 

The Head of Greening, Streetcare and Safety and Bereavement Services submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure, introduced the report. The proposals had been considered a number of times through the Council’s decision-making processes, including the Scrutiny Panel.  The Council’s Grounds Maintenance contract was due to end on 31 October 2026.  A new approach was proposed  by transferring the service to the Council’s commercial company, Amphora Services Ltd.  This was not the same as bringing the service inhouse, as Amphora Services Ltd operated in a commercial environment. It was the most cost-effective way of giving the Council greater control of the service delivery whilst driving innovation and efficiency.  Staff currently delivering the service would transfer to the Council under the TUPE provisions.

In discussion  Cabinet members stressed that this was a key service for residents and its delivery through the Council’s company was welcomed.  There would be a strong focus on standards. In view of Local Government Reorganisation, there had been concern about a seven year contract, but it was noted that this was the usual contract length for the sector and reassurance had been provided on this point

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The Grounds Maintenance contract be awarded to Amphora Services Limited from 1st November 2026, for a period of seven years, with an option to extend up to a further seven years, as set out in Appendix Two to the report by the Head of Greening, Streetcare and Safety and Bereavement Services.

(b) The service specification principles as set out in Appendix One to the report by the Head of Greening, Streetcare and Safety and Bereavement Services be agreed.

(c) To delegate the final agreement of the form of contract and service specification to the Head of Greening, Streetcare and Safety and Bereavement Services in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure. 

REASONS

The Council’s current Grounds Maintenance Contract would cease at the end of October 2026.  The Council needed to deliver this service within a specified budget envelope and work undertaken over the last few years had concluded that Amphora were best placed to deliver this service within the required parameters.

Grounds maintenance contracts were often set at seven years (with options for a seven year extension) for a combination of practical, financial, and strategic reasons, as detailed in Appendix Two to the report by the Head of Greening, Streetcare and Safety and Bereavement Services.

Service design was being finalised and therefore there might be minor changes to the specification.  Officers would need to work at pace to get this agreed in time for Amphora launching in November 2026, and therefore any final changes were to be agreed by the Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The alternative option was to award a five-year contract length rather than seven years – the five-year option was disregarded in favour of a seven (+seven) year option which provided a better balance of value for money, flexibility, risk management, and service improvement than a straight five-year contract.  It supported longer term investment and public value while retaining the authority's ability to review, challenge, and, if necessary, exit the arrangement.

The Director of Major Projects submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor Çufoglu attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet to highlight the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Panel when it considered this matter in November 2025  following representations made by the ward councillors.  The Panel had recommended that the environmental impact of the decision continue to be monitored, that Cabinet consider the position around the boating lake, how the Canoe Club could be supported, options for better access to the river Colne and communications around Middle Mill be improved. The Leader of the Council had given an assurance that he would continue to engage and listen and he was pleased to note the continued engagement with the Canoe Club.  The report before Cabinet referenced a report from EXO Environmental on fish passage at Middle Mill but he had been unable to find their conclusions. Could the Portfolio Holder provide an update on the work undertaken on the basis of the Scrutiny Panel recommendations as they did not appear to be fully implemented.  As ward councillors they had not received any further information or briefing.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and explained that in his view the proposals had been subject to effective scrutiny.  Councillor Çufoglu was part of a small group who were kept updated with headline progress on the weir and the bridge.  It was appreciated that it had been a very frustrating process for all involved. Real progress had been made, and the administration had tried to act in an open and collaborative way. Regular updates had been provided. However a point had been reached where a decision on the weir had to be made, but not on the boating lake, He would ask the Portfolio Holder to ensure he was given access to the relevant officers on the boating lake.

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure, also responded.  There was a risk of the issues around the weir, the bridge and the boating lake  being conflated.  It had been a long and frustrating process to get to this point and it was impossible to please all interested parties. The bridge was now open. Regular communications had been issued. Councillor Çufoglu had the ability to write to any officer or Portfolio Holder within the Council to request information.  This did not have to await a formal meeting.  They had operated in the spirit requested and a decision now to be made before costs increased further.  Further options on the boating lake would come forward in due course.

Councillor Goacher attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet.  A number of residents, particularly on Riverside Estate, had concerns about potential flooding if the weir was not rebuilt. Whatever decision was taken there was a need for regular and effective monitoring of the level of the river to address these concerns. There were also concerns about the ecological repercussions of not rebuilding the weir. There may be an increased danger of the riverbanks and trees collapsing and again this needed to be monitored. He had received anecdotal evidence that there was less fish upriver since the weir collapsed. Could the Council be certain based on real evidence that there was not a negative impact on wildlife?

Councillor Goss responded and agreed it was important to deal with evidence and fact rather than anecdote. Work had been undertaken on river banks and trees at his request. In terms of wildlife, the swans had adapted well and a fish gate would be introduced. No concerns had been raised previously about depletion of fish stocks upriver. The view of the Environment Agency, who were a very important stakeholder, was that the weir did not need to be rebuilt and that in general terms their policy was that it was better not to restrict river flow. He had spoken to the Riverside Estate Residents Association. They had had direct dialogue with the Environment Agency. Insurance companies used data provided by the Environment Agency to determine the level of risk and the services they provided. It was understood that the data did not support the withdrawal of insurance on the basis of flood risk.

Councillor King indicated that he would ask officers to look at what information could be collected to help provide reassurance to residents and ward councillors on these issues. It was appreciated that the weir had been a popular site and had provided an environment that was beneficial for the Canoe Club. The emotional attachment some residents had to the site was understood.  However, the costs of rebuild were significant and would not benefit the ecology of the river.  The costs of rebuild would also be likely to have increased and would need to be funded through borrowing, given the other calls on reserves. 

Councillor Goss emphasised that the Environment Agency were content that the weir was not rebuilt and were satisfied that there was no ecological reason to do so. There were implications for filling the boating lake, but that was a separate decision and a report on that follow to Cabinet in the new municipal year. A number of ideas on how this could dealt with had been brought forward. The Council could not afford to continue to keep borrowing, especially for projects that were not strategic priorities. It was his view that the Council could not afford to rebuild the weir but should continue to support the Canoe Club.

In further discussion Cabinet members stressed the need to respect the view of the Environment Agency, which was an expert in the field, and expressed concern about the costs of any rebuild and how this could be funded. There were other more pressing strategic priorities. Whilst it was a popular site it was unlikely to generate visitors or tourism.

It was therefore Cabinet’s view that the weir should not be rebuilt but that support should continue to be offered to the Canoe Club. 

In terms of the future use of the metal works from the weir, Cabinet’s view was that it was committed to finding a good use for this material but that a final decision on this should be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The weir at Middle Mill should not be rebuilt.

(b) Support for the Canoe Club should continue.

(c) Authority for a final decision on the use of the weir metal works including the wheel, gate and boxes be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure. 

REASONS

The recommendations were based on the financial implications of continued options appraisals.

Given that the bridge had now been repaired at Middle Mill, there was no environmental or financial benefit to reinstating the weir.

The metal components removed from the weir had been stored in the compound behind the cricket club since the bridge repair. This area would eventually be required for other purposes, so a decision on the future of these materials was needed. Potential options included
• Donating the parts to the SPAB Mill Section (Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings), where they could be repurposed for the restoration of other weirs.
• Initiating a community project to commission an artist to create a sculpture using the reclaimed metal, giving the material a new cultural and aesthetic purpose.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The alternative options were listed in the report to the Scrutiny Panel of November 2025. 
i. Replacement of the weir with a smaller weir structure to hold water levels slightly higher upstream. Planning permission and the Environment Agency (EA) confirmed this would also need to include a fish pass structure. 
ii. Rock river - planning permission and EA permitting would be required. The EA had stated that the permit process was currently taking several months.
iii. Offer the canoe club alternative land
iv. Do nothing, no interference and allow the river to re-naturalise.

Further delay in a decision was likely to increase costs to the Council in terms of resource, surveys and external consultants.

The Head of Recycling and Waste submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with a not for publication appendix in Part B of the agenda. 

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure, introduced the report, which sought authority for the award of a contract to purchase wheeled bins to implement the new Recycling and Waste Strategy. The Strategy had been subject to scrutiny and had also been considered by the Residents’ Panel. It would provide a cost effective, uniform and modern waste and recycling collection service. Officers were  undertaking a physical survey of the city to identify those areas where wheeled bins were not suitable.  It was estimated that this was only 1.4% of the city area.  The existing arrangements would continue in these areas.  The new system would be flexible to allow the rollout of wheeled bins to the maximum number of households and to allow larger bins to be provided where there was demonstrable need. The introduction of wheeled bins would increase recycling rates and also reduce the strain on the crews and thereby lead to a more effective and efficient service. 

RESOLVED that:-

(a) A contract estimated to be worth a total of £2,241,650 be awarded to IPL Plastics (UK) Ltd for supply of wheeled bins to Colchester City Council. 
 
(b) Authority be delegated to the Head of Recycling and Waste to enter into a contract for supply of bins.

(c) All kerbside properties, which had been assessed as suitable for Standard  Wheeled bin service, be provided with a 180 litre black bin for non-recyclable waste, and a second 240 litre green bin for mixed recycling,

REASONS

Wheeled bins were required to achieve the objectives of the Recycling and Waste Strategy approved in October 2024. 

The award of contract followed a competitive tendering exercise using the Government ESPO Framework Agreement 860_26 - Refuse and Recycling Products – Lot 1A Plastic 2 Wheeled Bins, involving both recycling and waste and procurement officers at Colchester City Council and following advice received from Environmental Consultant Ricardo.

There were six suppliers in the framework, all six had downloaded the tender and 5five submitted bids by the cut-off date.

The recommended decision was to award the contract to the supplier offering Colchester City Council best value and compliant with all procurement protocols.

The recommended tender was the cheapest price offered and was some £440k cheaper than the most expensive.

Fully green recycling bins were chosen because the pricing was the same as for black bins with green lids.  However, they were more visible to collection teams, and would lead to a more reliable collection service.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

There were no alternatives to enable the implementation of the approved strategy. Direct Award was not recommended because there were six suppliers in the framework enabling Colchester City Council to achieve best value.

The Head of Strategic Parking, Recycling, Waste and Fleet submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure and the appropriate officer  be authorised to:

a) give written consent to the Head of Network and Safety at Essex Highways and Interim Head of NEPP as soon as possible in March 2026 that Colchester City Council agrees to Essex County Council’s (ECC) proposal to extend the operational period of the NEPP Joint Committee by 12 months, ceasing on 31 March 2028, 
b) agree that Colchester City Council continue as Lead Authority, 
c) continue other shared services parking arrangements alongside the main Agreement.

REASONS

To minimise disruption and ensure the continued delivery of on-street civil enforcement (and other functions) delegated by ECC to the NEPP Joint Committee under Appendix A of the North Essex Parking Partnership Joint Committee Agreement 2022 in North Essex until 31 March 2028 (inclusive) when, thereafter, it was currently anticipated the functions will transfer to the new unitary authorities in Greater Essex to deliver.

To minimise disruption and ensure the continued delivery of off-street civil enforcement (and other functions) delegated to the NEPP under a separate agreement until 31 March 2028 (inclusive) when, thereafter, it was currently anticipated the functions will transfer to the new unitary authorities in Greater Essex to deliver.[JE1.1]

To avoid further disturbing NEPP Officers delivering the functions of the NEPP Joint Committee and off-street Partners. Terminating The North Essex Parking Partnership Joint Committee Agreement 2022 and other agreements on 31 March 2027, when it was anticipated that the functions would transfer to the new unitary authorities in Greater Essex on 1 April 2028, would expose NEPP Officers to an additional 12-month period of potential stress, uncertainty, and significant change.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

There were no alternative options presented by Essex County Council. The only alternative for Colchester would be to not agree to the extension, in which case baseline on-street parking services would continue to be provided via the County Council, but the City Council would have no say in how they were delivered. 

The Interim Head of the North Essex Parking Partnership submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

RESOLVED that the contract for civil enforcement systems and cashless parking solutions be directly awarded to Chipside Ltd using Lots 3 and 4 of the “Parking Management Solutions” ESPO framework for a period of two years, starting on 1 April 2026 and ending on 31 March 2028.

REASONS

The current civil enforcement system and cashless parking solution supplied to the NEPP by Chipside Ltd have been used since the NEPP was established in 2011. The NEPP had a strong working relationship with Chipside Ltd, and its systems and solutions were trusted to meet the current and future needs for the next two years until 31 March 2028. Chipside Ltd supplied the market share with nearly 200 Local Authorities and were trusted in the parking industry.

The current civil enforcement system and cashless parking solution were embedded into the on- and off-street parking services the NEPP delivered to its communities and citizens across multiple Councils, not just Colchester City. Bearing in mind the expiry date of the existing contract and the proposed new contract term of only two years, transitioning to an alternative supplier would require significant time and financial resources to implement with little-to-no benefit to the Councils served by the NEPP, as was currently understood.

It was also felt the finite resources were better dedicated towards continuous service delivery and improvement, readying the service for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and Vesting Day on 1 April 2028.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Other suppliers named on the ESPO framework were provisionally considered but soon rejected for the reasons stated above.

The Director of Estates submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor Scordis, Portfolio Holder for Culture, Heritage and Environment, introduced the report and emphasised the value of the Natural History Museum.  It was an asset that was particularly popular with families. The Council had plans to extend the museum.  However, there was a need for urgent repairs to replace the roof and repair the flint façade of the building.  The application for Museum Estate Development Funding had been successful. 

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The capital investment for the essential repairs to the flint facade, replacement of the roof and access systems be approved.

(b) Authority for awarding the contract (following a tender exercise) be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Resources and Assets on the basis that the overall project budget was not exceeded.

REASONS

The recommended decisions were  based on evidence from condition surveys, structural surveys and ongoing structural monitoring and intrusive exposure of the tower. Both the roof and tower façade of the Natural History Museum had deteriorated to the point where proactive intervention was required. The lead roof material was considered unsuitable for the span, displaying defects relating to thermal movement, compromised flashing and weather details, all of which increased the risk of water ingress and damage to the historic fabric. 

Given the Natural History Museum’s Grade II listed status and its importance as a civic and community asset, maintaining its structural integrity, safety and operational capability was essential. The recommended approach enabled the Council to address urgent risks, comply with statutory heritage requirements and manage the works in a structured, phased manner that reflected both technical priorities and financial responsibility. Proceeding now would protect the building, reduce ongoing maintenance liabilities and ensure that the all-important public access to the museum building continued to operate reliably and comply with health and safety regulations.

The reason for delegated decision for the tender acceptance, was that the tender process needed to begin as a matter of urgency with contract award and start on site as soon as possible after.  As there was no Cabinet Meeting in April or May this would mean that works could not begin until after the June Cabinet meeting.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

An alternative option would be to continue with reactive maintenance only; however, this
approach carried significant risk and was not recommended, as surveys had confirmed that key parts of the tower were already at, or beyond their conditional life and would suffer from repeated failures and collapse.

Further deterioration would likely result in increased emergency repairs, much higher long-term expenditure and potential health and safety implications, as well as avoidable damage to the Grade II listed fabric. 

Cabinet considered draft minute 168 of the Environment and Sustainability Panel meeting of 12 February 2026, a copy of which had been circulated to each member.

Councillor Scordis, Portfolio Holder for Culture, Heritage and Environment, welcomed.   the report.  As the relevant Portfolio Holder he had attended a number of the meetings of the Panel. It received reports from the Council’s excellent Sustainability Team. However, the Panel had limited influence as a responsibility for many of the issues it considered lay with Essex County Council.  There could be some merit in considering  the scope and responsibilities of the Panel, although under Local Government Reorganisation, the functions would fall within the responsibility of any new unitary authority. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that decisions about the future and roles of the Committee was beyond the scope of the report and if necessary, could form part of wider discussions about arrangements in the new municipal year. 

RESOLVED that the draft Annual Environment and Sustainability Panel Report 2025-26 be received and approved.

REASONS

The Environment and Sustainability Panel’s Terms of Reference required that it submit a report to Cabinet on an annual basis which evaluated the progress which had been made towards the Council’s goal of achieving carbon neutrality.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

No alternative options were presented to Cabinet. 

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 Interim Head of the North Essex Parking Partnership submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member containing exempt information in support of the report in Part A of the agenda.

RESOLVED that the contents of the report be noted,

REASONS

As set out in minute 1034.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

As set out in minute 1034.

The Director of Estates submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member containing exempt information in support of the report in Part A of the agenda. 

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The capital investment detailed in the report by the Director of Estates for the essential repairs to the flint facade, replacement of the roof and access systems be approved.
 
(b) Authority for awarding the contract (following a tender exercise) be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Resources and Assets on the basis that the overall project budget set out in the report by the Director of Estates was not exceeded.

REASONS

As set out in minute 1035

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

As set out in minute 1035.

RESOLVED that the not for publication extracts from the minutes of the meetings held on 28 January 2026 and 3 February 2026 be confirmed as a correct record.