Meeting Details

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting on 3 September 2025 be confirmed as a correct record.

Sir Bob Russell addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to express concern about the contents of a leaflet posted to residents produced by Essex County Council about the three unitary authority proposal.  This was not balanced and was effectively propaganda.  He objected to council tax being spent in this way.  In respect of the proposals for the grounds maintenance service, whilst the ending of the outsourcing of the service was welcomed, concern was expressed that the Council was pursuing capital projects, such as Holy Trinity Church and St Botolph’s, that would lead to increased costs for the Grounds Maintenance service.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and stressed that the Council was seeking to balance the books and manage costs within the service. Any cost increases resulting from these projects would be minimal but would add considerable value. In respect of the leaflet produced by Essex County Council, he shared the concerns expressed that other options had not been acknowledged in the leaflet. He had raised these concerns with the Leader of Essex County Council. The leaders of the authorities which had supported the five unitary authorities options had written to ministers to make their concerns known. 

Alyssa Carrington, addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Ruler 5(1) to express concerns about the proposal to extend the use of glyphosate weedkillers. These were carcinogenic and hormone disrupting. Concerns were also expressed about the way the Environment and Sustainability Panel had considered the issue and about some of the statements made in the meeting. Councillors considering this matter should show regard for the health of their residents and show integrity to scientific research.  This was not a small decision, as had been asserted at the meeting.   Cabinet needed to demonstrate that the Council could take difficult decisions based on science.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked Alyssa for her comments.  The issue would be discussed substantively later in the meeting, but respect should be shown to the councillors on the Environment and Sustainability Panel who been the subject of criticism, who were hard-working and thoughtful councillors undertaking a difficult role.  The proposal before Cabinet was for use of glyphosates in very limited and controlled circumstances and it needed to be borne in mind that it remained a licensed product.

The Strategic Director submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with draft minute 543 from the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 7 October 2025

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, and Councillor Pearson, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth, Transformation and Digital introduced the report.  The Strategic Plan Action Plan showed performance against the six strategic priorities in the Strategic Plan 2023-26.  It highlighted a number of successes, proposed the removal of some elements that had been completed and proposed some new additions. Thanks were expressed to officers across the Council for their work in addressing the Action Plan and to the Programme and Performance Manager for her work in coordinating and reporting on the Action Plan.

In discussion, Cabinet members highlighted a few elements from the Action Plan including:-

• It was highlighted that small initiatives could have a significant impact, such as the introduction of compactor bins. 
• Other successes included in the Delivery Plan included the innovative Beyond the Box scheme, the Community Asset Fund and the Play Parks project. The Play Parks project had been a success as it was based on clear criteria and was therefore demonstrably fair.
• Those initiatives which enabled residents to make improvements themselves were particularly welcomed.

Cabinet noted the recommendation from the Scrutiny Panel that the action in respect of Cymbeline Meadows not be removed from the Action Plan. However, the Action Plan covered the 2025-26 municipal year.  There was no prospect of progressing this action in this year and therefore it was right that it be removed from the Plan.  However, officers would continue to work on exploring funding opportunities to progress this action, particularly through biodiversity net gain. As had been promised at the recent Full Council meeting, an update would be provided to all members.

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The changes to the Strategic Plan Delivery Plan actions as set out at paragraph 5.5 in the Strategic Director’s report be agreed.  

(b) The recommendation from the Scrutiny Panel at its meeting on 7 October 2025 not be agreed, but that work continue exploring funding for the development of Cymbeline Meadows as a nature reserve.

REASONS

To ensure delivery against the Council’s Strategic Plan. 

It was good practice and necessary to review and refresh the steps taken and activities which need focus to best achieve the desired Strategic Plan Outcomes

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The Council could make no changes to the existing Strategic Plan Delivery Plan.  This would result in actions and activities that risk being out of date or do not effectively reflect the work needed to drive forward the Councils ambitions.  It would also make monitoring of progress and achievement difficult going forward.    

Cabinet considered draft minute 533 from the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 10 September 2025, a copy of which had been circulated to each member. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, introduced the item and explained that the recommendation arose from concern about the handling of a response to government about potential sites for new towns, which it was accepted fell short of the Council’s usual governance standards. The recommendation was accepted and in addition changes to governance process would be referred to Governance and Audit Committee to consider.

RESOLVED that elected members be informed and consulted regarding any future potential large-scale projects affecting their wards at as early a stage as possible.

REASONS

To ensure that members were kept informed about future large-scale projects that may affect their wards at the earliest opportunity.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Not to agree the recommendation from the Scrutiny Panel.

Cabinet considered draft minute 159 from the Environment and Sustainability Panel meeting of 9 October 2025, a copy of which had been circulated to each member. 

Councillor Dundas attended and, with the consent of the Chair, addressed Cabinet to highlight concerns amongst some councillors that the governance arrangements around the Town Deal were sub-optimal and that there was a lack of understanding about its processes and funding.  It was appreciated that the governance model had been imposed by government.  Referring to future regeneration projects, Cllr Dundas added the recent road works on St Botolph’s roundabout about been poorly handled with resulting chaos on Colchester’s road network, even extending into surrounding villages.  This was a key junction for North Essex and two lanes needed to be kept open for most of the day. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked Councillor Dundas for his comments and welcomed his support for cross party working on the Town Deal.  The governance structure could not be altered as it had been imposed as part of the funding deal. However, information about the structure and decisions taken would be shared more widely. Essex County Council understood that it needed to do better in the selection of contractors and the management of schemes to ensure that these problems did not recur. Contractual arrangements needed to reflect the needs of business and residents across Colchester and to be flexible. 

In discussion, Cabinet members expressed frustration about their ability to influence decisions of Essex Highways, even if they were Essex County Council members.  It was hoped that bringing highways functions together with other services through local government reorganisation would improve the situation in the long term. Issues also arose because of the way permits were granted to utility companies to undertake road works and until the legislation surrounding this was reformed, problems would remain.  It was appreciated that in view of planned works, this would be a difficult year in Colchester, but the planning of individual schemes needed to improve.

In summary, Councillor King thanked the Environment and Sustainability Panel for their recommendation, which raised important issues.  The need for clarity on governance for the Town Deal was understood. However, the scope for changes to the governance arrangements was limited as the structure had been imposed as part of the funding and there were clear delegations in place to Essex County Council and Team Colchester.  Consequently, the recommendation from the Panel could not be accepted but the Council would work with Essex County Council to improve the flow of information and the understanding of the governance processes surrounding the Town Deal projects.

RESOLVED that the recommendation from the Environment and Sustainability Panel not be accepted, but that the Panel be thanked for their consideration of this matter and that the Council work in partnership with Essex County Council to improve the flow of information and the understanding of the governance processes surrounding the Town Deal projects.

REASONS

The governance arrangements around the Town Deal were imposed by government as part of the funding deal and could not be changed.  However, the need to improve members understanding and knowledge was appreciated.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

To agree the recommendation from the Environment and Sustainability Panel.

The Head of Greening, Streetcare and Safety and Bereavement Services submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with draft minute 544 from the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 7 October 2025.

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure introduced the report. The Council’s contract for grounds maintenance services with Idverde was due to end in October 2026. It was proposed to move in a different direction and bring the service back in-house, with the service being delivered through Colchester Amphora. It would be delivered in a cost-effective manner that would take account of cost increases that had occurred through the period of the contract with Idverde. This would also help with the budget pressures facing the Council and also help prepare the way for the challenges of local government reorganisation. If the service remained out-sourced then the budget would need to increase by at least 20%.  By bringing the service back in house it would enable the Council to better control the cost of the service and therefore it was the most cost-effective option. It would also give the Council more direct control of the delivery of the service.  There was confidence that services would not be cut further. It was noted that there was a supportive recommendation from the Scrutiny Panel.

RESOLVED that:-

(a) Negotiations with Amphora proceed to transfer the Grounds Maintenance Service to them from 1st November 2026, for a period of 5 years, with a break clause built in at 3 years.  These negotiations to clearly set out service delivery model within the budget available (c£1.9M).  

(b) Authority be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Waste, Leisure and Neighbourhoods to progress the In-house delivery model should the preferred option in above either:

• Not result in an agreed, affordable bid (within the existing budget envelope) from Amphora to deliver the Grounds Maintenance service, within required timescales or,
• Any eventual bid from Amphora results in a budget cost that is either unaffordable for the Council or deemed to be higher than the Council could deliver through its in-house services over a 5-year period.        

(c) The recommendation from the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 7 October 2025 be noted.

REASONS

The Councils current Grounds Maintenance Contract would cease at the end of October 2026.  The Council had already decided not to extend this contract so a decision was required to ensure the future service could transition to a new provider, either in-house through CCC or through a LATCo.   

Of the options available, delivery through the Council’s wholly owned LATCo, Amphora, with reduced staffing costs compared to an in-house model, would mean less visible service reductions than would be the case through an in-house model.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The alternative options were as follows:

• Retendering the contract to external provider - The analysis conducted by both APSE and OPS clearly demonstrated that re-tendering the existing contract to an external provider was not a financially viable option for the Council. Furthermore, pursuing this route would be contrary to guidance issued by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) in relation to Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), which emphasises the importance of maintaining flexibility for the future Unitary Council.

• Bringing the service back in-house - delivering a significantly scaled-down version aligned with the available budget envelope, in order to meet the required savings targets.

Cabinet considered draft minute 161 from the Environment and Sustainability Panel meeting of 9 October 2025, a copy of which had been circulated to each member. 

With the consent of the Chair, a statement from Councillor Goacher was read to Cabinet by the Democratic Services Manager. This expressed his opposition to the recommendation from the Environment and Sustainability Panel. There had never been a complete ban on the use of glyphosates, and it was still used eradicate Japanese Knotweed, and other reason exemptions could be made under the current policy. Cabinet would be aware of the damages awarded to a groundsman in the United States following a diagnosis of cancer in the Johnson vs Monsanto case.  If there was any possible risk to children’s health, then glyphosates should not be used.  There were other ways of dealing with the issues of weeds in play parks, if they were properly built and maintained.  If the proposal from the Panel was adopted, how would the policy be monitored and what criteria would be used to define “necessary” use?  It was concerning that fuller approaches had not been made to Tendring and Braintree with a view to joint purchase and use of Foamstream equipment. 

Councillor Cufoglu attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet. Residents had a right to enjoy their parks and neighbourhoods without the risk of their children or pets being contaminated by carcinogenic pesticides.  Concerns had been raised by two residents associations. He had contacted several neighbouring authorities and shared ideas as to how the issues could be tackled and had organised a public meeting with residents associations and environmental organisations.  He had also met with the Chair of the Environment and Sustainability Panel and relevant officers to discuss alternatives. He welcomed the work officers had undertaken on the community volunteer scheme, which the Green group had promoted. Despite this, the Panel had recommended the reintroduction of glyphosates, rather than integrating a community volunteer scheme. The Panel’s decision was rushed and did not cover all of the relevant issues, and not all groups had been in attendance.  He had shared with all councillors groundbreaking research linking glyphosates to cancer, which had forced several governments to review their use. This study had not been considered as part of the decision by the Panel. Cabinet should endorse options 1 and 2 in the report to the Environment and Sustainability Panel.  The Council already had a community volunteer co-ordinator and many volunteers on its database and many groups and businesses had also expressed a willingness to support this work. The Council should be prepared to innovate. He was willing to use his locality budget to buy equipment and would urge others to do the same.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and stressed the importance of councillors treating each other with respect, even when they did not agree.  Councillors came to issues with differing levels of knowledge but were able to rely on officers for specialist advice.  It was important their contributions were not talked down.  Glyphosates were still licensed products that were used widely.  It was also important to consider the financial aspects of the decision.

Councillor J. Young, Deputy Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Housing, explained that the Labour member of the Panel had been unable to attend due to a medical emergency of a close relative and at very short notice it had not been possible to send a substitute member.

In discussion several issues were raised by members of the Cabinet including:

• There was a good level of volunteering across Colchester and this was to be welcomed and celebrated.  However, there was evidence of a drop in volunteering from younger generations.  Essential services should not be provided by volunteers.  There was a difference between volunteers picking litter and dealing with pernicious and difficult vegetation, which could require equipment and training. 
• The services provided by the Greening and Streetcare Team need to be prioritised, with the provision and maintenance of play parks as a top priority. 
• Essex County Council continued to use glyphosates within the city. As local government reorganisation moved closer, the views and practice of the other authorities the Council was likely to be integrated with become increasingly relevant. 
• Whilst there was some public support for not increasing the use of glyphosates, there was also a body of opinion that weeds needed to be tackled vigorously to maintain the look and character of Colchester. 
• Some of the expert evidence around the health effects of glyphosates was concerning.  However, the position of the European Commission was a useful indicator.  They had reviewed the use of glyphosates twice in the previous decade and their view was that it could remain approved for use until 2031, subject to any further evidence coming forward that raised concerns and had instructed the relevant agencies to keep the issue under review. 
• Should option 3 be adopted, then a rigorous governance process would be put in place where decisions on the use of glyphosates would be made by the relevant Head of Service and Portfolio Holder.
• Some members were of the view that the reintroduction of glyphosates was a retrograde step and that alternative options should be pursued.

Councillor King explained that the Cabinet was not in a position to take a decision as the Council needed to discuss the issue further with its prospective partners in any new unitary authority and to further assess the financial and budgetary implications of the recommendation.  There would be scope in the period when these issues were looked at to investigate further the issues raised about volunteering. 

RESOLVED that:

(a) The Environment and Sustainability Panel be thanked for its thoughtful consideration of this issue and its recommendation.

(b) Consideration of the recommendation from the Environment and Sustainability Panel be deferred for further consideration of the issue with the prospective partners in any new unitary authority and to further assess the financial and budgetary implications of the recommendation.

REASONS

Cabinet needed further information on the position of partners and the financial and budgetary implications of the recommendation before a decision could be taken. 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

To agree the recommendation from the Environment and Sustainability Panel.

Cabinet considered draft minute 163 from the Environment and Sustainability Panel meeting of 9 October 2025, a copy of which had been circulated to each member. 

Councilor Parsons attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet to draw attention to a report the Council had recently submitted to the government on adaptation to climate change under section 63 of the Climate Change Act. This required public authorities to report on how climate change would affect the responsibilities of that public authority, what plan the authority had to mitigate it and how well it was progressing. It was an outstanding and balanced report, dealing with local issues alongside national issues.  It addressed issues such pluvial and coastal flooding, coastal erosion risks and increased risks of wildfires. These were issues on which the Council need to consider planning policies.  However, these issues were not referenced in the Climate Emergency Action Plan. This raised issues of integrity and could undermine the report to government. To address this the Council could either withdraw the report to government, which would be a retrograde step, or Cabinet could look at how the Action Plan could be rebalanced to address the local impacts of climate change.  

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Sustainable Development, and Councillor Scordis, Portfolio Holder for Culture, Heritage and the Environment, responded. It was agreed that the Action Plan could be modified to include the local impacts of climate change, including pluvial and coastal flooding, coastal erosion and wildfires.  However, the actions to address these issues were largely the responsibility of other authorities, particularly Essex County Council, who were the Flood Authority and therefore the Council did not have the authority or the resources to tackle these issues. The inclusion of actions could imply that the Council would be taking action itself or had the budget to do so, which was not the case. 

It was proposed that the wording of recommendation (b) could be amended to clarify the position and make it clear where the responsibility for actions lay.  Whilst this would primarily be Essex County Council, as local government reorganisation moved forward, this would fall to new unitary authorities.  Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, undertook to raise these issues with partners. 

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The Council’s Climate Emergency Action Plan be modified to include the risks highlighted in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Adaptation Reporting Power report, to include pluvial and coastal flooding, coastal erosion and wildfires.

(b) Actions be included in the Climate Emergency Action Plan by the appropriate authority to address the impacts of climate change on the local area.

REASONS

The inclusion of the local impacts of climate change would be a sensible addition to the Climate Emergency Action Plan but it needed to be clear on where responsibility for any actions lay. 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Not to agree the recommendation from the Environment and Sustainability Panel.

The Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The draft Calendar of Meetings for the next municipal year, from May 2026 to April 2027, be approved.

(b) Authority to cancel meetings be delegated to the Chair of the relevant Committee/Panel in conjunction with the Head of Governance.

REASONS

The Calendar of Meetings needed to be determined so that decisions for the year could be timetabled into the respective work programmes and the Forward Plan.

Advance notice of the Calendar of Meetings needed to be made available to Councillors and to external organisations, parish councils and other bodies with which the Council works in partnership, and to those members of the public who wish to attend meetings of the Council and make representations.

Rooms needed to be reserved as soon as possible so that room bookings could be made for private functions by private individuals, external organisations and internal Council groups. 

A formal arrangement needed to be in place for the cancellation of meetings that no longer need to be held.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The proposal agreed by Cabinet had been devised based on the current meeting structure and frequency.  It was possible to devise alternative proposals using different criteria.