Meeting Details

RESOLVED that: the minutes of the meetings held on 28 April 2025 and 26 June 2025 be confirmed as a correct record.

Caroline White attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5(1). She was addressing the Panel on behalf of Friends of Middlewick (FOM), and had last attended a Panel meeting on 12 December 2024 when FOM had been campaigning for the removal of the site’s allocation within Colchester City Council’s Local Plan.

In theory, the urgency for FOM to continually campaign for the protection of Middlewick had been reduced, however, this was not the case and a Council commissioned botany report advised that there had been a “history of management neglect” at the site, and warned that without urgent action the condition of the site would continue to deteriorate. Councillors would be aware of the spate of fires that had adverse effects on the sensitive habitats of Middlewick earlier in the year.

FOM had made regular offers to support the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) with volunteer work parties to help manage the gorse which it noted had not been managed since 2017. The removal of dead wood and old leggy plants would reduce the fuel load, and the installation of fuel breaks would limit the spread of fire. The DIO had recently responded that they “could not accept such a generous gift”, and had also stated that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) was not a fire expert. FOM argued that the MOD had both the ecologists and fire experts necessary to formulate a holistic management plan with fire resilience which also met their statutory biodiversity duty.

Middlewick was a complex site of biodiversity which required a complex management plan, and Natural England had been unable to secure this with the MOD and DIO. FOM and partners had successfully negotiated a more appropriate fire break and cutting regime with the DIO through Natural England. However, the DIO had already reneged on this by not undertaking the essential cut on the meadows identified as nationally important for grassland fungi last autumn.

Natural England agreed with FOM that the restoration of the areas impacted by fire was important, and that it was the MOD’s duty to undertake this, however, so far no remedial work had been carried out.

The launch of the Essex Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) had highlighted the urgent need for action to drive nature recovery with a target for the creation of 20,000 hectares of grassland. Middlewick was an existing ancient, unimproved grassland with a complex array of biodiversity with many nationally or locally rare species. It was imperative for current and future generations that the biodiversity at Middlewick was at the very least conserved.

Would the Panel commit to requesting that the MOD met its statutory duty to conserve and enhance the biodiversity of Middlewick with an appropriate management plan? Would the Panel further agree to meeting with members of FOM and Colchester Natural History Society to further discuss the need for management of the site and restoration of the mosaic habitat for invertebrates?

The Chair of the Panel offered his thanks to FOM, and although he would pass the comments made to the relevant portfolio holder, he was not aware what else the Council could do.

Simon Cairns, Head of Planning, Sustainability and Climate Change, attended the meeting and confirmed to the Panel that the concerns expressed by FOM had been recognised. The site remained under the ownership and management of the MOD, and as such the Council had no authority to compel management to take place. Planning Officers had been in contact with Natural England, which was a body which had been advocating for appropriate site management, and they would continue to support such efforts. The Panel heard that it would help greatly if the site was to receive a statutory designation, however, this step was entirely within the gift of Natural England, and there was nothing that the Council could do at the present time except to continue to offer support for this course of action.

The Panel considered a report which provided it with an update on Team Colchester’s work to explore developing a new Transport Interchange for Colchester City Centre, and which also updated on other related schemes including improvements to the St Botolph’s Circus area and to walking and cycling provision.

Matt Sterling, Head of Economic Growth, attended the meeting remotely and advised the Panel that it would receive updates on transport initiatives which were being led by Team Colchester, which was a working alliance of Colchester City Council and Essex County Council to drive regeneration in Colchester city centre. A new transport interchange was being considered to replace the current bus station, together with changes to St Botolph’s circus.

Ian Turner, Principal Transportation & Infrastructure Planner for Essex County Council (ECC) attended the meeting remotely and provided the Panel with a presentation containing information about Local Cycling and Walking Plans (known as LCWIPs), together with sustainable travel improvements at St Botolph’s Circus and East Hill.

With respect to the improvements planned for St Botolph’s Circus, it was necessary to retain the roundabout at the location as it was important to recognise the importance of the location from a general transportation perspective as a key element of the network, including buses and other vehicles. The scheme was intended to make improvements not only to sustainable connectivity for walkers and cyclists, but also to the public realm and gateway into the city centre, linked to the wider St Botolph’s regeneration. It was hoped that work on the site would commence in the New Year for a period of approximately 18 months.

Colchester Transport Interchange was another initiative taken by Team Colchester, intended to support Colchester as a growing city in the future, reinforcing this key arrival point in order to prioritise safe and sustainable transport modes. The current road network was under considerable pressure, and anything which served to alleviate this pressure and encourage greater use of public transport was to be supported. It was hoped that a transport interchange would allow people to change modes of transport more easily within the location, supporting a variety of sustainable travel methods such as walking, cycling and e-scooters.

The next stage for the project was to establish a Single Preferred Option to include concept designs, site assessments, transport planning and analysis of costs and buildability. A design would be sought which would meet the wider regeneration transportation needs of the city centre, as well as linking in with the Masterplan for the area. It was hoped that technical work would be completed in early 2026 prior to seeking public engagement and the recommendation of a preferred option for the project.

Turning to the East Hill LCWIP, the Panel heard that proposed improvements to the area were not limited to cycling and walking connections, but included support for bus services as part of the rapid transport corridor. High quality pedestrian routes would be maintained as well as cycleways and bus stop areas, and it was aimed to enhance the area through use of different material types, for example.

In response to a question from the Panel, the Principal Transportation & Infrastructure Planner for ECC confirmed that the scheme did seek to make provision for secure cycle parking, and would look to extend this throughout the area, with the aim of making it easier to navigate within the St Botolph’s area.

A Panel member noted the slippage which had occurred on the Council’s Capital Programme, and although it sounded as though the schemes were progressing well, he wished for clarification to be provided on who was responsible for the governance of such schemes, and where the responsibility would lie if any issues or problems arose. The Principal Transportation & Infrastructure Planner for ECC confirmed to the Panel that in terms of the governance process for the St Botolph’s scheme, a service level agreement existed between ECC and Colchester City Council, and formal process existed within ECC associated with Cabinet reports and business cases. In respect of the East Hill scheme, funding was received through the Town Deal and Active Travel England as well as ECC, and this scheme would also follow ECCs formal project management and governance and approval processes, including input from the Monitoring Officer and the S151 Officer, together with Cabinet members. The Head of Economic Growth confirmed to the Panel that whether a scheme was funded by Town Deal or Levelling up, Colchester Council was the accountable body, and the normal management and accounting arrangements would apply to such schemes.

The Panel accepted the comprehensive description of the governance processes of ECC, but a Panel member noted that Colchester City Council was accountable for the schemes and remained concerned by this. He considered that there were a number of detailed elements of the schemes which merited further investigation and consideration, such as the interplay with the rapid transport system (RTS). He queried whether a body of Councillors been charged with scrutinising the proposals. He suggested that a small group of Councillors should be appointed to examine the proposed project in huge detail in advance of work being undertaken and considered that this would assist the efficient delivery of these projects. There was a requirement for more focus and accountability around such schemes.

The Head of Economic Growth assured the Panel that as the scheme was funded by the Town Deal, it would be presented to the Council’s Scrutiny Panel once a year, which would have the opportunity to rigorously examine the scheme, and did so. There was political involvement at every stage of the schemes, including engagement with relevant ward members or interested parties, scheme by scheme.

Responding to concerns which had been raised by a Panel member in respect of the diversion of traffic through rural communities, the Head of Economic Growth confirmed that at the point which contractors were appointed to deliver the schemes, they would be required to create traffic management plans to keep traffic flowing and manage the work safely. The traffic management plans would be approved through ECCs governance structure.

Rik Andrew attended the meeting and addressed the Panel pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5(1). He advised the Panel that he had spent 20 years working on Active Travel schemes, and had chaired the London-wide Junction Review Group which had designed out many major hazards at sites including Oval, Whipps Cross, Stratford & Old Street, which were all now cycle safe and pedestrian friendly with free-flowing traffic. Old Street now had direct, single-phase toucans on all arms, giving walkers & cyclists long green times, simply by holding left turns at red. This allowed walkers & cyclists to share the same green and red phases as drivers without any conflicts between modes.

He believed that the St Botolph’s roundabout should be replaced by a crossroads with ‘hold left turns’, and not another roundabout with outdated 2-phase crossings which imposed long delays and detours on both walkers and cyclists. Colchester was surrounded by several major roundabouts which presented a hazard and deterrent to active travel, and the redevelopment of the St Botolph’s area should be to best practice.

The Panel heard that East Hill was steep, and the proposed cycle lanes were too narrow. It needed a wide uphill cycle track to allow overtaking within it as cyclists speeds varied a lot more than cars, especially uphill. A downhill track, however, was not needed and narrow downhill tracks were positively dangerous. Segregated tracks elsewhere that were too narrow were ignored by most cyclists, for example Lea Bridge Road.

He believed that neither of these expensive schemes should be approved, as both needed redesign to comply with best practice. A ’new dedicated cycling route from the City Centre to the East of the City linking with the University and Greenstead was worthwhile, but this route must start in the city centre itself, in the High Street.

The Principal Transportation & Infrastructure Planner for ECC advised the Panel that Mr Andrew had made a number of the same points as part of the original public consultation, when responses had been provided to him. With regard to the St Botolph’s design, there were a number of factors to take into consideration, including the need to return traffic back towards the Maldon roundabout, as to fail to do this would create traffic problems at junctions further along the road system. It was also necessary to balance all modes of transport using St Botolph’s, including cars. With regard to the active travel measures which were part of the scheme, consultation with Active Travel England had taken place, and their advice had been taken with regard to the design layouts and incorporated within the scheme. It was considered that at the current point in time, the proposed schemes provided balance for achieving all active travel objectives at the location. With regard to East Hill, it was not practical to install 2 metre wide cycle lanes in both directions due to the limitations of the site, and 1.5 metre lanes had been provided. It was felt that there was a need to make provisions in both directions to support all cyclists, and not just confident ones. He conceded that there was a need to improve the connection to the city centre, and this would be considered as part of the Colchester City Centre Masterplan which would seek to provide further improvements that supported active travel in this location.

RESOLVED that: the contents of the update be noted.

RECOMMENDED to Cabinet that:

• The Environment and Sustainability panel considered the Council’s plans for St. Botolph’s roundabout, the Transport interchange and improvements to East Hill. It expressed concern about the lack of clarity on governance for the Town Deal and Levelling Up Fund projects.  In particular, there was concern about the lack of focus and member scrutiny on the detail at design stage of major changes to the Colchester Road layout. In addition, there was concern that Colchester is the accountable body, but all financial controls are embedded elsewhere in Essex County Council. It therefore recommends that Cabinet consider the matter and make a clear delegation of authority to Essex County Council for project Management and to Team Colchester, making clear the level of responsibility and scrutiny expected.

The Panel considered a report which set out the options for weed control in the future, and which requested that it make a recommendation to Cabinet. 

David Carter, Parks and Open Space Improvement Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Panel with its enquiries. The Panel had considered the Greening Policy on several occasions over the preceding months, when it had requested that additional information be included in the Officer’s report, including the cost of using volunteers for weed control and the strategies adopted by neighbouring local authorities. This information had now been provided and was before the Panel. The Panel was asked to choose between 3 options which were set out in some detail in the report.

In 2019, the Council had taken the decision to stop the use of glyphosate herbicide for the use of weed control on its own land, and a number of alternative methods of weed control had been trialled since that time. Methods which had been effective had included additional mulch on shrub beds and the use of stimming around lamp posts and place signs. Non-glyphosate chemicals had also been trialled and had been a partial success, however, there was no single definitive replacement for glyphosate as alternative methods had proven ineffective on weed with long taproots which recurred shortly after treatment, and which were now creating a real challenge. For the preceding years, weed control had focussed on hand weeding, strimming around obstacles and the use of non-glyphosate herbicides, which carried a significant annual cost. The Parks and Open Space Improvement Officer had been using the playground revenue maintenance budget to pay a contractor to control weeds in playgrounds, for example, whereas this budget had been intended to maintain the safety of equipment at the sites.

Weather conditions had a great effect on weed growth, and during damp summers in particular it had proved difficult to maintain adequate weed control. Additional expenditure on non-glyphosate chemical control had failed to provide an adequate long-term solution.

A second option was to continue to use the current methods of weed control, with the additional recruitment of volunteers to assist in areas where it was safe for them to work. Details of the numbers of volunteers need and the associated cost of managing these were contained the report. In addition to the equipment which would be needed, a part time volunteer co-ordinator would need to be recruited to manage the large volume of volunteers who would be needed to maintain adequate weed control.

The third option before the Panel was to continue to use methods detailed in the report, supplemented by single droplet use of glyphosate in areas where there was a particular health and safety issue, or other difficulties which necessitated its use.

Detailed breakdowns of all the potential methods of weed control were provided in the report, together with associated costs.

In response to questioning from the Panel, the Parks and Open Space Improvement Officer confirmed that the current policy did permit the use of glyphosate spot spraying on notifiable weeds such as Japanese Knotweed. One of the issues which had arisen as the result of not using glyphosate had been damage caused by roots of plants such as thistles and buddleia on historical walls where the weeding options available were limited. It was possible that weeds which were hazardous to dogs, such as ragwort would be ineffectively controlled through strimming and hand weeding alone.

A Panel member recognised the issues which Officers had been experiencing, and considered that although it was obviously ideologically desirable to continue with the ban on glyphosate herbicides, it was also necessary to consider the practical elements of weed control, and he would therefore favour supporting the third option which had been presented to the Panel in the Officer’s report.

A member of the Panel noted that neighbouring authorities Tendring and Braintree did use glyphosate for weed control, and proposals under local government reorganisation (LGR) to merge Colchester City Council with these authorities would potentially mean that glyphosate would be used in Colchester by a new unitary authority in the near future.

Simon Cairns, Head of Planning, Sustainability and Climate Change, attended the meeting and drew the attention of the Panel to the financial information contained in section 17 of the Officer’s report, which stated that the current £84,000 cost of weed control management was currently forecast to exceed the allocated budget in the 2025/26 financial year, resulting in a projected budget pressure of £30,000. The Panel was asked to be aware of the considerable costs associated with the non-use of glyphosate.

In discussion, the Panel considered recommending the third option in the Officer’s report, noting that it would save money and leave the decision on whether or not to employ glyphosate to specialists. The Parks and Open Space Improvement Officer assured the Panel that the most appropriate method of weed control would be considered for each individual area, and glyphosate would not be used indiscriminately.

The Panel suggested that a further review should be carried out in a year’s time to assess the effectiveness of the policy.

RECOMMENDED to Cabinet that: it adopt option 3 from the Officer’s report, as detailed below:

1. Continue to manage unwanted vegetation using hand weeding methods as described in the report. This option requires ongoing revenue budget of £54k per year to provide the additional resource and the remaining £30k is an annual ongoing revenue pressure which is currently being mitigated by underspends within the service required to maintain the current level of weed control in Colchester’s green spaces and infrastructure.

2. Continue managing unwanted vegetation using the current manual methods as described in the report, by recruiting volunteers to conduct weed control in areas where it is safe to work, such as play areas and open spaces. There is currently no budget for the co-ordinator or recruiting volunteers and this option will require the financial support as set out in the report.

3. Use the methods described in options 1 or 2 above in all areas for weed control as a first option. If none of these are effective and no other suitable alternative method of weed control can be identified, that in agreed locations only, limited single controlled droplet application of glyphosate is permitted for use during the growing season only (April - September on an estimated two or three occasions depending on weather conditions) under strict conditions.

The Panel considered a report which updated it on the work delivered by the City Council’s Transport and Sustainability team since the last update in August 2024.

Emily Harrup, Transport and Sustainability Joint Lead, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Panel with its enquiries. The Panel received a presentation which introduced the Officers of the Transport and Sustainability Team (the Team), and which outlined the key areas of its work including strategic partnership working, raising the profile of Colchester and sharing knowledge, working with local communities, securing funding to deliver projects and developing and delivering these projects.

The Team used community feedback to develop all of its projects, and in many cases the local community had been directly involved in projects through co-design or in terms of delivery.

There had been a period of public consultation ending in early 2025 in relation to a new Air Quality Action Plan, and it had been very encouraging to see the enthusiasm for improving air quality which had been expressed, with many consultation responses supporting continuing to deliver projects to improve air quality even after national standards had been met. Response had also been sought in relation to key areas for future focus, and the top  areas identified had been to improve bus and train services, deliver more secure cycle parking, improve and expand wayfinding and to support active travel in the Local Plan.

Jane Thompson, Transport and Sustainability Joint Lead, attended the meeting and advised the Panel that the Team worked with an extremely wide range of organisations, including Essex County Council (ECC), as part of its strategic influencing and alignment work with the aim of securing the best investment and outcomes for Colchester. An example of working with ECC had been to offer support with funding bids and project delivery. The Team also worked closely with Transport East, a regional transport lobbying group, to include a better rail service for Colchester Town railway station.

The Panel heard that £3.91m of external funding to deliver projects had been secured by the Team since 2018, and the Team was constantly searching for sources of external funding to support the delivery of projects requested by local communities. 

The Team had helped to ensure that those using new developments allocated as part of the Local Plan had options to travel sustainably, and if measures were needed to increase the development’s sustainable travel options, then this was requested through the development team, which was an internal process.

The promotion of walking had scored highly in the air quality consultation, and the Team considered additional ways to encourage walking, including refreshing the ‘Walk Colchester’ website, and community engagement was being sought in respect of new content and design. The Panel heard that 3 walking projects had been completed in the preceding year, including ‘Fixing the Link’, which welcomed those arriving at the station and directed them to the city centre. This was complementary to the active travel improvements that ECC was delivering in the area, including a single stage crossing at the Albert Roundabout, and the refurbishment of the North Bridge. The ‘Walk with Words’ project had also been delivered from student accommodation incorporating physical wayfinding as well as digital content, with new witing and media to be added. Wayfinding from the station to Colchester hospital had also been installed to encourage those visiting the hospital to travel by train.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) funding had been used to complete a complete refresh of the Colchester Cycle website, which sought to provide a single online resource which brough together all the local organisations, voluntary group and information which would help new or existing cyclists. Since the launch of the website, it had received over 10,000 views. A new ‘cycle Colchester’ map had been introduced in August 2025, replacing an ECC map from 2016, and this had been well received necessitating the initial print run of 3,000 copies to be re-printed. DEFRA funding had also supported the introduction of a short hire scheme, which gave people the opportunity to borrow an e-bike or e-cargo bike for up to a month to help determine whether this was suitable for them. So far, there had been 47 hires and the feedback received had been that use of the bikes, which had excellent cargo capacity, had reduced the need for car journeys.  

Cycle security was also of key importance to encourage cycling in and around the city centre, and following a successful 2 year trial of a temporary bike hub, the Team was now in the process of securing a permanent bike hub, to include a secure bike park as well as Colchester Bike Kitchen and the e-cargo bike library. The Bikewise campaign had been revived in conjunction with Essex Police, and signage carrying the Bikewise message would be installed on all bike racks in the city centre by the end of October. Secure cycle lockers had also been installed at Colchester Town station using funding from Greater Anglia, and cycle cages had been installed at Leisure World.

With regard to promoting public transport, the Team had recently designed an integrated transport customer survey for Greater Anglia to help them consider opportunities for improvement, and the results showed that more people would prefer to use the bus to travel to and from the station, if certain barriers were addressed, such as the co-ordination of bus and train timetables and bus service frequency. The Team worked with ECC, bus operators and other partners to help increase the number of people who use buses, attending the Bus Blueprint meeting to present the findings of the transport customer survey, and undertaking to produce a similar survey for the bus companies. Work was ongoing with ECC to help promote the park and ride service which helped to support the city centre regeneration and nighttime economy businesses.

Much of the Team’s work around promoting electric vehicles (EV) had been through shared mobility schemes, and a third car club had been launched in St Peter’s Street funded partly through the developer and partly through the Enterprise Car Club, and this complemented the 2 existing car club cars which had been funded by DEFRA. ECC was being supported in the delivery of its EV charge point strategy through looking at potential locations in Colchester as well as cross-pavement solutions for domestic vehicle charging.

The Colchester City Travel Plan had received national recognition for the number of travel plan initiatives which were in place, and the demonstrable reduction in the number of staff driving to work. Initiatives had included secure bike parking at the Town Hall, and funding had been received from ECC for secure cycle parking at Leisure World. Lunchtime walks had been introduced, and a free park and ride service for staff had continued, as well as promotion of a 50% discount on public transport and 35% discount on trains.

Nik Hughes, Active Travel Business Engagement Lead, attended the meeting and addressed the Panel. The Panel heard that the Team had met with 80 businesses to assess travel behaviours, raise awareness of local initiatives and promote sustainable travel options, and a community event had also been held in the bike hub, supported by Colchester Business Improvement District (BID). An active travel took kit had been developed, which was a flexible resource used in business and community engagement, and subsets of the toolkit were under development for new businesses, estate agents and hotels. Case studies highlighting the benefits that people had experienced through active travel were being prepared and would be published on the Colchester Travel Plan Club (CTPC) website to inspire wider adoption. Surveys were being prepared with the BID which would examine business freight, employee commuting choices and visitor and shopper travel behaviours.

The CTPC had 65 member organisations, including 18 full-paying members and 47 associate members, including key Colchester stakeholders. The CTPC was working closely with the BID to develop membership of its travel plan club, and this would take the shape of a focused, phased membership to realise active travel and congestion beating benefits for engaged businesses. The Team was working with key stakeholders such as ECC to mitigate the disruption which would be caused by the re-development of the St Botolph’s circus site, through measures such as promoting the park and ride and park and stride schemes, and the availability of Colchester Town station.

An e-cargo deliver app would be launched by Christmas, and had been funded by DEFRA and co-developed with local and national cargo bike delivery services. It would support the development of a micro distribution hub on the perimeter of the city centre and the focus would be on solving problems caused by congestion and pollution. The app also presented opportunities for licensing and continued development due to the interest expressed by other cities. A Business eLearning tool was given free to businesses as part of training for their employees, and highlighted the health impacts of pollution and the health benefits of active travel, as well as raising awareness of the active and sustainable travel choices which were available in Colchester.

As well as engaging with businesses, the Team also engaged with young people and had updated its ‘Take Care of Your Air’ toolkit for schools to include active travel and the actions needed to develop a school travel plan. Assemblies and workshops had been delivered to 7 schools as well as a Scout group and Beaver group, and 7 schools had worked with the Team to develop their own active travel map. The Team had engaged with approximately 1,000 young people and had worked with ECC’s Active and Sustainability an Bikeability Teams to provide a co-ordinated approach with schools.

During the year the Team had attended 12 community events across Colchester, conversing with had 350 people, and approximately 120 people had tried out an e-bike or e-cargo bike at these events.

The Panel heard that an emerging area of work was to increase engagement with colleagues who worked in public health working with public health via 2 emerging projects. The first of these was to develop a communications package for the promotion of AirTEXT, which was a communication package, and the Team was also working with Colchester and Suffolk hospitals, Suffolk County Council and ECC to develop a supporting pack to assist healthcare professionals to start to introduce the issue of air quality into patient conversations. Evidence demonstrated that patients wanted to hear about air pollution from healthcare professionals.

The next steps for the Team included:

• Supporting City Centre regeneration by promoting Travel Choice and eCargo Bike delivery service for business
• Working with partners to increase bus use in line with interchange plans
• Expanding shared mobility through developments, including in existing areas
• Delivery of the permanent Bike Hub
• Expanding partnerships with Health sector
• Working with partners to promote walking and wayfinding
• Continuing to look for external funding to deliver travel choices for residents, workers and visitors

The Panel was invited to consider how it could support the work of the Team in the community.

A Panel member would be happy to pass on the results of an ongoing travel survey in her ward to the Team, but noted that an area of concern which was regularly raised by residents related to the use of e-scooters and e-bikes left strewn across the pavement, how could this issue be addressed, while still encouraging the use of this mode of transport? Could additional areas of designated parking for these vehicles could be considered, as well as bonusses for riders for using these areas?

The Transport and Sustainability Joint Lead explained that thew Team worked closely with the provider of the e-scooters and had been conversing with them about the possibility of introducing physical corals. Additionally, the provider of the s-scooters charged users more if the vehicles were left outside designated areas.

In response to a question from the Panel in relation to the focus of areas of work of the Team, the Transport and Sustainability Joint Lead confirmed that it was fair to say that work to date had probably concentrated in the city centre as lots of available funding had related to the improvement of air quality improvement areas. This funding had been used to trial projects in the city centre, and the aim was then to expand these projects to cover a wider area. The Team had targeted a reduction in short journeys where other modes of transport were available such as the city centre, as if fewer people were using the road this would free up space for those who did need to use a car.

A Panel member noted that some areas of Colchester had populations of much higher than that national average percentage of people aged over 65, particularly Mersea, which should mean that this was a prime area for developing public transport routes such as busses. However, bus companies were unwilling to regularly visit Mersea as they were wary of being trapped by the tides across the Strood, meaning that a large number of people on Mersea did not have access to bus services.  The Transport and Sustainability Joint Lead confirmed that the Team was working with bus companies, and encouraged the Panel to promote any surveys which were undertaken as widely as possible within their wards, as it was important to receive as much feedback as possible.  

The Panel offered its full support to the work of the Team, considering that every avenue was being explored to nudge people towards modal shift, and it was good to see Officers introducing practical and down-to-earth initiatives. A Panel member did, however, feel that larger solutions may be needed to tackle the wider issues of congestion, such as the introduction of a congestion charge similar to those which had been adopted in London to encourage the use of public transport through an economic incentive. Encouragement was offered to the Team to continue to investigate every means possible to drive modal shift.

Turning to the Essex Pedal Power project in Greenstead, the Panel sought confirmation that the scheme had been successful. The Transport and Sustainability Joint Lead confirmed that although the scheme was not run by the Council, she was aware that it had been very successful and a large number of bikes had been given out to support active travel.

RESOLVED that:

• The Panel supported the progress being made by the Transport & Sustainability team delivering on the Council’s strategic plan commitments, and;
• The Panel supported the ongoing partnership working with Essex County Council and other stakeholders to encourage schools, businesses and residents to make more active and sustainable travel choices.

The Panel considered a report which asked that it note the progress which has been made with the Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP), including actions which have been taken. 

Marie-Ann Capps, Sustainability & Climate Change Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Panel with its enquiries. The latest version of the CEAP had been published in November 2024 containing 8 themes and over 50 actions, and this document was currently the subject of a thorough review. Several new actions included establishing energy audits throughout Council buildings, early planning for renewable energy generation in Colchester, community support for energy efficiency and improving understanding and awareness of climate change risks for Council operations.

Officers were working in partnership with Essex County Council (ECC) and the University of Essex to secure funding from the Heat Network Development Unit, which was used to procure a feasibility study for a potential heat network centred on the University and providing heat and hot water to social housing in Greenstead.

Officers were supporting ECC in its delivery of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) and working with local community groups to enhance local nature reserves. The Council had also taken part in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Adaptation Reporting Power (ARP) Pilot.

A Panel member had read the ARP Pilot report, and considered that this had bene very positive. He did, however, consider that the danger of a local authority taking action on climate change was that it may duplicate the work other organisations were carrying out. The ARP Pilot report had contained 70 references to flooding, including coastal flooding, as well as references to coastal erosion and the risks of wildfires, however, these very important issues were not reflected in the CEAP when surely they should be?

Simon Davison, Sustainability & Climate Change Manager, attended the meeting and agreed wholeheartedly with the comments which had been made, advising the Panel that one of the reasons for carrying out a through review of the CEAP was to ensure that it remained current and addressed relevant issues. Consideration would be given to the local risks which had been highlighted, with a view to potentially including these in the Council’s Risk Register. Although no timetable had yet been set for the completion of this review, the Panel was assured that it was the intention of the Sustainability & Climate Change Manager that the focus of the CEAP would be on the effects of climate change on the local area, as opposed to the effects of climate change on the Council’s ability to deliver services.

RECOMMENDED to Cabinet that:

• 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.
• Cabinet considers including appropriate actions in the Climate Emergency Action Plan to address the impacts of climate change on the local area.

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

RESOLVED that: the contents of the report be noted.