Meeting Details

RESOLVED that: the minutes of the meeting held on 21 October, including those contained in Part B of the agenda, be confirmed as an accurate record.

The Committee considered a report which provided details of Colchester City Council's Annual Review Letter for 2025, which is provided by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman detailing the number of complaints it has received regarding each local authority.

Andrew Weavers, Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquires. There had been no findings of maladministration in the preceding year, and no formal reports had been issued. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman had upheld 2 out of the 3 complaints which is had investigated, and full details of these complaints were contained in the report before the Committee.

RESOLVED that: the contents of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Annual Review Letter for 2024-25 be noted.

The Committee considered a report requesting that it review the Council’s updated Ethical Governance policies. These were the key policies which set out the standards of conduct and integrity that the Council expected of councillors, staff, partners, suppliers and customers when conducting Council business. They contained procedures for dealing with breaches of the policies and processes to be followed.

Andrew Weavers, Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquires. The Committee heard that the Council was committed to the highest standards of governance including the elimination of fraud and corruption and ensuring that all activities were conducted ethically. The ethical governance policies which were presented to the Committee set out the standards of conduct and integrity expected from councillors, staff, members of the public and volunteers, and breaches of the policies were pursued in accordance with the relevant procedure.

In the past, the ethical governance suite of policies which had been considered by the Committee had contained a number of information technology (IT) policies, however, these policies would be referred to the Committee in 2026 following their review as part of a data protection audit.

The Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer had reviewed the Anti-Fraud and Corruption, Whistleblowing, Anti-Money Laundering and Covert Surveillance policies and confirmed that these were fit for purpose and no changes were proposed, save for an amendment to the Whistleblowing policy which now made reference to the Council’s grievance procedure and Anti-harassment, Bullying and Victimisation Policy. The Head of Operational Finance had reviewed the Income and Debt Policy and confirmed that no changes were proposed to processes, which were still relevant and met legislative requirements, whist supporting strong collection rates. There was a proposed change to the fees for liability order and summons, as well as proposed changes to write off limits.

Darren Kidson, Interim Head of Digital, attended the meeting remotely and addressed the Committee in relation not the proposed Acceptable Use Policy. Changes which had been made to the proposed policy were intended to provide greater clarity and understanding. The Policy itself was designed to protect the organisation, staff and Councillors from cyber security threats, and from breaching data protection legislation. Officers had taken on board extremely helpful comments and feedback which had been received from Councillors, and further guidance and support would be provided to all staff and Councillors, particularly in relation not data protection which could be a complicated subject.

In response to questioning from the Committee, the Interim Head of Digital confirmed that it was possible for Councillors to download any Council related documentation which was already in the public domain to their personal devices, and as such this was not mentioned in the proposed policy.

A Committee member expressed some concern about the timing of the implementation of the new Policy, suggesting that the proposed date of 2 January was too soon, and it may be better to make sure that all Councillors understood the implications of the Policy before introducing it. By way of response, the Interim Head of Digital advised the Committee that although he was sympathetic to the concerns which had been raised, the proposed Policy was not a new policy and had already been adopted by the Council in previous years. The Policy which was before the Committee had simply been altered to provide greater clarity.

Councillor Pearson, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation attended the meeting, and with the permission of the Chair, addressed the Committee. He had listened to the concerns which had been expressed and suggested that an appropriate date for the implementation of the Policy may be the 20 January 2026, when the next meeting of the Committee was scheduled. The Interim Head of Digital confirmed that he was happy with this suggestion.

RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL that:

- The following policies be approved for inclusion in the Council’s Policy Framework:

- Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy

- Whistleblowing Policy

- Anti-Money Laundering Policy

- Covert Surveillance Policy

- Acceptable Use Policy (including password policy) Digital / ICT

- Income and Debt Policy

The Committee considered a report which requested that it review the Local Code of Corporate Governance for 2025/26. The Local Code of Corporate Governance was how the Council demonstrated that its structures complied with the recognised principles of good governance. The Committee was also requested to recommend that Full Council included the Code in its Policy Framework which comprised all of the Authority’s key polices.

Andrew Weavers, Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquires. The Committee was reminded that CIPFA (The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy) and SOLACE (The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives) had issued guidance in 2016, and the Local Code of Corporate Governance (the Code) was an important document which demonstrated compliance with this guidance, and which was used by both the Council’s internal and external auditors. The Code itself had been reviewed, and no substantial changes had been made.

RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL that:

- The updated Local Code of Corporate Governance for 2025/26 be approved for inclusion in the Council’s Policy Framework.

The Committee considered a report which requested that it review the Councillors’ (Members’) Code of Conduct and the Council’s Localism Act Arrangements for dealing with complaints made regarding councillors. The report also provided an update on the number and types of complaints which had been received under the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Andrew Weavers, Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquires. The Council had adopted the Local Government Association’s (LGA) model Code of Conduct for Councillors in 2022 and it had been operating without any issues since this date.

A review of the Council’s “Arrangements” for dealing with allegations that Councillors had potentially failed to comply with the Code had been carried out and indicted that no changes had been necessary, although the position would be kept under review.

The report before the Committee set out the number, type and outcome of all allegations which had been received in the last year. There were no particular trends to draw the attention of the Committee too around conduct. The numbers of allegations had risen slightly but this was not considered to be of particular concern.

The attention of the Committee was, however, drawn to the changes which were proposed to the Standards Framework following a government consultation on strengthening standards, to which the Committee had submitted a response. The changes which were proposed by way of legislative system reform were:

- the introduction of a mandatory code of conduct

- a requirement that all principal authorities convened formal standards committees

- the requirement that all principal authorities offered individual support during any investigation into code of conduct allegations to both the complainant and the councillor subject to the allegation

- the introduction at the authority level of a ‘right for review’ for both complainant and the subject elected member to have the case reassessed on grounds that would be set out in legislation 

- powers for authorities to suspend elected members for a maximum of 6 months for serious code of conduct breaches, with the option to withhold allowances during suspension for the most serious breaches and the introduction of premises and facilities bans either in addition or as standalone sanctions

- in response to the most serious allegations involving police investigation, or where sentencing is pending, the introduction of powers to suspend elected members on an interim basis for an initial period of 3 months which, if extended, would require regular review

- a new disqualification criterion for any elected member subject to the maximum period of suspension more than once within 5 years

- the creation of a new national appeals function, to consider appeals from elected members to decisions to suspend them and/or withhold allowances, and for complainants if they consider their complaint was mishandled.

The proposed changes would probably not be introduced until at least 2027, and would therefore be for any new unitary authority to enforce.

RESOLVED that: the contents of the report be noted.

The Committee considered a report which invited it to approve the Member / Officer Protocol and that it be included in the Council’s Constitution.

Andrew Weavers, Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquires. No changes were proposed to the Protocol, and it was commended to the Committee for approval.

RESOLVED that: the Member / Officer Protocol be approved, and that it be included in the Council’s Constitution.

The Committee considered a report which requested that it approve updated guidance for councillors regarding any gifts and hospitality received in their role as a councillor and for employees in relation to any gifts and hospitality received.

Andrew Weavers, Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquires. Following a review of the Guidance no changes were proposed, and it was commended to the Committee for approval.

RESOLVED that:

- The Guidance for Councillors regarding Gifts and Hospitality be approved and included in the Constitution, and that;

- The Gifts and Hospitality Policy for Employees be approved. 

The Committee considered a report which requested that it approve the attached Guidance for Members and Co-opted Members on Dispensations and that it be included in the Constitution.

Andrew Weavers, Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquires. Following a review of the Guidance no changes were proposed, and it was commended to the Committee for approval.

RESOLVED that: The Guidance for Members and Co-opted Members on Dispensations be approved and that it be included in the Constitution.

The Committee considered a report which requested that it approve the attached Guidance for Councillors and Officers on Outside Bodies and that it be included within the Constitution.

Andrew Weavers, Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquires. The only change to the Guidance was in respect of the requirement for Councillors and Officers who were acting as directors to be registered at Companies House.

RESOLVED that:

- The Guidance for Councillors and Officers on Outside Bodies be approved and included within the Constitution, and that;

- All Councillors and Officers who were appointed to serve on outside bodies be provided with a copy of the Guidance. 

The Committee considered a report which requested that it endorse the proposed change by the Leader of the Council to the Leader's Scheme of Delegation to Cabinet.

Andrew Weavers, Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquires. The proposed amendment to the Constitution followed a recommendation from the Scrutiny Panel, and if implemented would satisfy the requirements of the Panel.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, attended the meeting, and, with the permission of the Chair, addressed the Committee. He noted that the proposed amendment had been the subject of significant discussion at both Scrutiny Panel and Full Council.

A Committee member had proposed a motion at Full Council in relation to this issue, and welcomed the proposed amendment. He did, however, consider that issues remained unaddressed, particularly in relation to proposed garden communities, sought assurance that lessons were being learnt from the past in respect of improved communications between infrastructure groups. In response, the Leader of the Council offered his belief that continuous learning was being undertaken by the Council’s excellent Officers, who were deserving of praise. The Council was operating in a framework for housing targets which had been set by government and had to adapt as circumstances changed. The Committee was assured that the Leader of the Council did his best to encourage dialogue, but this required the collective agreement of all Members. In responding to consultation processes the engagement of Members was vital, as was trust between Councillors and Officers, and the report before the Committee addressed this point.

RESOLVED that: The proposed change by the Leader of the Council to the Leaders Scheme of Delegation to Cabinet Members as detailed at paragraph 3.5 be agreed.

The Committee considered a report which presented to it the unaudited accounts for the Council's wholly owned companies for 2024/2025.

Simon Hughes attended the meeting and addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1). He addressed the Committee in respect of the governance and financial management of Colchester Amphora Energy Ltd (CAEL), and the implications for public money. He requested clarity and assurance on behalf of residents who funded these activities and deserved transparency about the risks and liabilities which were attached to council-owned companies.

Companies House records showed that in 2019 the Council had provided CAEL with a fully secured loan. The legal charge had included a fixed charge, a floating charge over all of the company’s assets, and a negative pledge which prevented CAEL from securing borrowing from any other source. That charge remained listed as outstanding today, five years later.

Although the Council had written off the loan in its own accounts, Companies House filings confirmed that the debt itself had not been formally released. As a result, CAEL still legally owes this money, even though the Council has already recognised the financial loss. This created an unusual situation where the liability continued to sit on the company’s balance sheet, with potential consequences for tax and audit treatment.

Residents were already aware that CAEL had generated a corporation tax bill in the region of £375,000, which the Council had ultimately covered. His understanding was that this liability had arisen partly because loan impairments or write-downs could be treated by HMRC as taxable income for the borrower. His concern was whether similar tax exposures may arise again in future if any further adjustments, write-downs, or formal loan forgiveness occurred within CAEL.

A second area where clarity was needed related to government grant funding. Public information suggested that CAEL had received central government support for its heat-network project. If grant conditions were not met because the project was not delivered, there may be a risk of clawback. If grant monies had already been spent, this could create a significant additional liability for the Council. He therefore asked the Committee to confirm whether any government grants connected to CAEL were subject to clawback, whether the Council had received any correspondence on this point, and whether financial provisions had been made in the accounts in anticipation of a possible repayment.

Would the Committee confirm the current outstanding loan balance owed by CAEL, the assumptions made by external auditors in relation to impairment and expected credit loss, and the Council’s intention regarding the future of the company—whether it will remain dormant, be restructured, or be dissolved, and what the financial implications of each option would be?

These questions were raised in good faith and with respect. They related directly to the governance, audit, and financial oversight responsibilities of the Committee. Residents wanted to understand the scale of any remaining exposure linked to CAEL, and to have confidence that risks were being transparently assessed and properly managed.

Thanking Mr Hughes for his contribution, the Chair of the Committee advised that it had received assurance on some of the points raised in the past. In view of the fact that the questions asked had been detailed, a full written response would be provided after the meeting.

Keith Coomber attended the meeting and addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1). The Committee heard that the Council’s own Climate Emergency report confirmed that the Northern Gateway heat network had never been operational and that the commercial basis of the scheme was never realised. Could the Council provide a single, consolidated and fully transparent statement of the total financial exposure of this failed project— including:

1. All Council loans made to Colchester Amphora Energy Ltd (CAEL),

2. all loan write-offs and impairments following the hibernation of the company,

3. the full cost of transferring unusable assets, such as the boreholes, back onto the Council’s books, and

4. any potential requirement to repay part or all of the £3.5m Government Heat Network Investment Project grant?

Residents deserved to know the total maximum liability, not a piecemeal drip-feed of partial numbers. In addition, could the Council state clearly the date on which Officers first concluded that the heat network was no longer commercially viable, and why, long after that point, official council websites and promotional material continued to describe it as a flagship, carbon-cutting, operational heat network, when internal documents confirmed it never functioned at all?

Who had specifically authorised the decision to begin physical works, such as drilling multiple boreholes, before a guaranteed customer base had been secured for the heat network, and what governance process had approved taking that level of commercial risk with public money?

Would the Council now publicly account for:

- how much had been lost,

- when Officers knew the scheme was failing, and

- who had signed off the decisions that allowed construction to begin without the commercial foundations in place?

Unless these three questions were answered together, residents could not have confidence that lessons were being learned, or that the same financial risks would not be repeated in future regeneration projects. A new heat network had been proposed with the University of Essex, given what had happened in the Northern Gateway, could the Council confirm what specific safeguards would be put in place to guarantee that the same mistakes would not be repeated? In particular, would the Council commit that no physical or other preparatory works would take place without the presence of an independently validated business case proving commercial viability?

The Chair of the Committee thanked Mr Coomber for his detailed and relevant questions, and confirmed that a full written response would be provided to him after the meeting.

Simon Coward, Managing Director, Amphora, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquires. Before the Committee was the latest version of the draft final accounts which had now been audited by Amphora’s external auditors, Affinia.

In discussion, a Committee member considered that there appeared to be some interesting businesses within Colchester Amphora Trading Ltd (CATL), but also 3 other businesses which had nothing in them; the holding, energy and housing companies. He considered that with a little effort the dormant companies could be wound up, addressing the points which had been raised by members of the public at the meeting. The objective of the remaining company could then be to pay money to the Council as a special management fee and not as a taxable dividend. This would remove tax liability while retaining the independence of operation and commercial orientation of a wholly owned company.

The Managing Director, Amphora, agreed with the points which had been raised, and confirmed to the Committee that the structure of the companies was currently under review. The merits of paying a dividend or a management fee were also part of this technical review. Significant work had also been carried out in respect of adopting the best tax mitigation strategy.

RESOLVED that: the draft accounts 2024/2025 be noted.

The Committee received a verbal update from the Managing Director, Amphora Group, in respect of Amphora’s Financial Model and Grounds Maintenance.

Alistair Wilson, Senior Commercial Manager, Amphora, attended the meeting to provide the Committee with a verbal update on the Council’s grounds maintenance contract. A decision had been made by Cabinet to open discussion with Amphora on the basis that from 1 November 2026, Amphora would deliver the grounds maintenance contract for the City Council. Current negotiations were in the discovery phase, and focussed on topics such as the specification of the service to be delivered, the exit from the current grounds maintenance contract, identifying efficiencies of a modern contract and creating a viable and sustainable business case. The necessary investment in modern grounds maintenance equipment would provide Amphora with an opportunity to offset tax.

Simon Coward, Managing Director, Amphora, attended the meeting and, in response to a question from a Committee member about the impact of local government reorganisation, assured the Committee that Amphora was well aware of the potential issues and opportunities, and had already undertaken providing a number of services for neighbouring local authorities. Further discussions would be entered into with neighbouring authorities in the future as appropriate. Richard Block, Chief Operating Officer, attended the meeting and offered further assurance to the Committee that the contract would also be the subject of discussion by the proposed shadow board when this had been set up to consider contract commitments beyond the life of the Council.

In discussion, the Committee sought clarification on the tender process for the contract, and whether or not Amphora had the necessary experience to deliver such a contract. Would it not be better to focus on expanding the businesses which were already successful such as Helpline and the events business?

The Senior Commercial Manager, Amphora, confirmed that the contract for grounds maintenance had been awarded to Amphora, and there was therefore no tender to undertake. Amphora staff did have experience in grounds maintenance, including the Managing Director, and additional technical assistance would also be brought in if necessary. There were a number of advantages in Amphora delivering this contract, both financial and other efficiencies, and although Amphora’s successful businesses were an eclectic mix, there was significant synergy between them.

RESOLVED that: the verbal update be noted.

The Committee considered a report which set out its work programme for the current municipal year.

Matthew Evans, Democratic Services Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The attention of the Committee was drawn to the scheduling of an additional meeting in February 2026, and some changes to the agenda for the scheduled January meeting.

RESOLVED that: the contents of the report be noted.