Meeting Details

RESOLVED that the minutes of the following meetings be approved as a correct record:

• 15 May 2025
• 21 May 2025
• 3 June 2025
• 19 June 2025
• 8 July 2025

Mr Ken Walker addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), to raise his concerns regarding Colchester Amphora Energy Limited [CAEL] and the fact that it was charged corporation tax due to the Council writing off a loan of £1.5m to its wholly owned company. Mr Walker voiced concern that this had not been publicly admitted by the Council and that he had seen no explanation as to the loan write off. The Scrutiny Panel was urged to scrutinise large Council projects, to publish learning points from failures and to provide oversight to ensure that Council-owned companies did not make costly mistakes in the future. Mr Walker raised concerns regarding perceived lack of transparency in the Council’s companies, including no clear statement of profits from Amphora Trading’s events work. The Council was accused of overspending, use of reserves and allowing projects to slip. Mr Walker asked how the Panel would scrutinise future business plans and to hold people accountable for any failures, wanting good and bad outcomes to be transparent.

Councillor David King, Leader of the Council, thanked Mr Walker and stated that the Council had ambition, but sometimes lacked the ability to carry that ambition out. It was expected that the Council would be in a better position by the end of the year, regarding the matching of ambition to capacity. Amphora Trading was described as doing excellent work and making money, as context when looking at issues as they arose.

A Panel member noted that the Amphora companies had been looked over extensively by Governance and Audit Committee, with significant changes having been made due to that scrutiny. A report would soon be received to show this.

The Chairman raised the matter regarding the Council’s expression of interest in the potential development of a new town to the West of Colchester, which had not gone via the Local Plan process. This expression of interest had been made by the Council so as to learn more about the implications but had been withdrawn when it was ascertained that the housing would not count towards the local housing numbers target. The Chairman asked the Panel to consider whether it wished to receive more information on this decision making, potentially in a report for the Panel’s meeting on 9 December 2025.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council, explained the context of this decision-making process. Government was seeking potential sites for new large settlements, with Government funding available, and a minimum of 40% affordable housing. Government statements indicated it was intended that infrastructure and services would be provided. The Council tabled provisional interest in the proposal, subject to two conditions. The first was that the scheme would not be counted as an addition to existing local housing target numbers. It was not clear at the time whether that would be the case. The second condition was that suitable infrastructure would be provided. The cancellation of A12 improvement works made this impossible.

The Leader informed Scrutiny Panel that the Council had received no response from Government, after repeated attempts to elicit a response. This had left the Council in an untenable position, leading to the withdrawal of the Council’s expression of interest. The Leader acknowledged that the information could have been better communicated to councillors. The Council was described as facing a huge housing challenge, with more than 400 households in temporary accommodation, and over 2.5k on the housing register. The Council had to be open to potential new ways of working. This potential scheme had not progressed, but the Leader explained that he did not regret signalling the Council’s openness to look at new options for tackling challenges and local housing targets.

A Panel member asked whether the decision to express interest had been made by Cabinet or by the Leader. Agreement was voiced that communications were important and should have been better on this matter, where a freedom of information request had caused the information to be made public. It was ventured that local ward councillors should have been informed and spoken to at an early stage. Councillor Bentley informed the Panel that he had first learned of this matter, as Leader of Essex County Council, via the local newspaper. The view was put forward that rushing to meet housing targets would not be the best approach to take, and it was noted by a Panel member that a similar scheme in that area had been thrown out previously by a Planning Inspector. The benefits of a spatial planning approach were extolled. Building only to target numbers would produce ‘boxes’ and inappropriate housing rather than communities. Spatial planning would fall within the duties of the future Essex Mayor. The cancellation of the proposed A12 works was described by a Panel member as being affected by an incorrect process being used, and that the situation would be better with an Essex Mayor, to ensure this was not repeated.

The Leader stressed that lessons had been learned, that future decision-making would be done better, and members told if there was any news in the future. He had decided, as Leader, at the start of the process for the Council to express an interest. A number of Panel members gave the view that, where significant projects or decisions are being contemplated, relevant ward councillors should be involved by default from an early stage. One Panel member called for a change in culture and for a protocol to be introduced to contact relevant ward members as soon as possible, in relation to decisions or proposals affecting their wards.

The Chairman thanked the Leader for his candour and stated that he was content to take the Leader’s word on this matter, rather than to seek a formal report.

Stewart Thompson, Chair of Trustees at Community 360, and Cristina Huddleston, Interim Chief Executive of Community 360, gave a presentation to provide an update on the work being done at Community 360 [C360], and the ongoing changes that had been made.

The Chair presented apologies from C360 for disappointing its staff, partners and the public. The background to the current situation was given, with a timeline of key events and work done stemming from concerns being raised, in February 2024, about a loan made by the charity to its then-Chief Executive, for building works to be done at her home that were stated to have been to provide additional storage space for C360’s assets.

The charity’s initial response was described as one of surprise, hurt at the accusations made, and defensiveness. The Chair of Trustees told the Panel that there had been a hope at the time that the issue would go away, but as time progressed there was increased interest in the matter, with difficult questions being asked. Most of the trustees left the organisation, seeing a loss of experience, and new ones were then appointed. The Chief Executive and Chair of Trustees at the time both left the charity. A range of very different trustees were recruited, changing the Board’s profile to have a third each of trustees from private, public and charitable sectors.

The charity adopted an approach of contrition and humility, and of seeking to rebuild trust with peers and the public.

The conclusions from the Charity Commission’s report on its investigation were gone through. C360 had invited a senior governance expert to work with the charity to improve its governance and processes. The charity had taken on all of the Charity Commission’s recommendations and the Board had been tasked with rewriting the full slate of the charity’s governance documents. Work was then carried out with partners such as the Council and NHS stakeholders to rebuild trust. The Chair of Trustees emphasised that the criticisms of C360 related to the approach of the Board of Trustees that had been in place at the time, and that there was no blame aimed at the staff members who delivered the charity’s services. The staff worked well, and the fault was described as being at the Board level.

In 2024 the Charity Commission had informed C360 that it would be lodging an official warning, that would be delayed until 2025. C360 had told the Commission that any further delays would force the charity to close, due to the extreme difficulty in operating without the Commission’s findings being available for partners to see. Following this, and assurances being provided, the Charity Commission decided not to issue an official warning notice. This was, in part, because all but one of the original trustees had been replaced, and in light of the work done to improve the organisation’s governance, and to address the Commission’s concerns, and the improved training provided to trustees. The loan at the heart of the issue had also been repaid in full by the former Chief Executive.

The Chair of Trustees laid out the recruitment process used to appoint the current Interim Chief Executive and underlined that the charity was now in a much different position.

The Interim Chief Executive went through the timeline of work done, and the order of set out for addressing priorities. The deficit in the charity’s finances had necessitated examination of spending; both of levels and areas of spend. Staffing was addressed, and moves taken to remove officers where necessary, and bring forward those who had ideas and ability to assist in the renewing of C360. A more democratic approach was introduced as to how business was conducted, and a Special Advisory Board was established to provide oversight of decision making. An Investment Committee was formed to ensure C360 had the right partnerships, made good investments and that all was done in line with the aims of the charity.

The strengths of collaborative work were emphasised, sharing resources and identifying partner organisations who already provided good services and/or used successful models which could be brought in to help. All of the work was evidence-driven, with input from communities and an eye for where there was a lack of evidence or where community feedback had not been gained. C360 was focused on community sustainability and empowerment, as well as ensuring sustainable investments.

C360’s aims were split into seven parts, with five focused on operational delivery: these were ‘connecting communities’, ‘community roots’, ‘connecting care’, ‘future ready’ and ‘beyond formal education.’ The environmental agenda also formed an important aim, as this would impact everyone, so C360 was engaging with it now.

The Interim Chief Executive explained that a voluntary organisation needed to have an active volunteer base and needed work secondments and placements. Policy and advocacy work had continued, and views had been captured from service users, helping to connect people to necessary resources.

C360’s work often involved the health and wellbeing of some of the most vulnerable in society. Struggles faced included financial and health issues, and cooperation between all active organisations was vital in order to meet challenges. The next generation of people within C360 needed to be introduced, often belonging to the communities served by the charity. The Interim Chief Executive gave the view that C360 had now done enough to merit being given a chance to move forward.

The Interim Chief Executive was working to reduce the budget deficit to a manageable level, aiming to completely clear the deficit by the end of the year. Much of the funding for C360 had been statutory funding, and the charity was seeking to diversify its funding streams, joining with partner organisations. The aim was to move to only around 30-40% of income coming from statutory funding sources by year end.

A Panel member laid out concerns that local residents had shared with them, including questions about the direction of C360. The member’s view was that community needs and demands needed to be identified, leading to the identification of areas right for collaboration in service delivery. The representative of C360 were asked to give more detail on how it considered progressing work to develop young people’s skills.

The Chair of Trustees explained that, in 2024, C360 had not been able to take part in strategic meetings with partners due to the ongoing Charity Commission investigation. C360 was now catching up. The Interim Chief Executive added that, as of January 2025, the charity faced closure by April 2025. 2025 would be a financially challenging one, so she specified her focus on the base programmes that the charity knew it was good at running, such as community transport and prescription collection services. Inroads had been made.

For young people who are not in employment or further education, C360 would replicate and expand on existing models. This could not be done earlier, as the charity had been excluded from necessary meetings over a number of months. The Interim Chief Executive expressed understanding that there was a need for C360 to build trust with others over time, so that partners would see the charity as partners and a credible investor.

A Panel member welcomed the members of C360 staff who had attended to watch the meeting. The collaborative work carried out with other organisations was described as being impressive. The Chair of Trustees was asked how the Council was represented on his board, in order to protect its investments. Details were requested on the funding position, and on how C360 would decide upon future collaborative projects. Tom Taylor, the Council’s Community Enabling Manager, was asked if he was assured that the changes at C360 were working and whether he had confidence in the organisation. The Community Enabling Manager stated that the charity was taking steps in the right direction, building trust and making progress. The Council was looking at grant plans across all areas, and not just those involving C360.

The Interim Chief Executive underlined that the charity’s staff had been key to the achievements made, and that the situation which C360 had found itself in was not a reflection of the grass roots organisations working with it. The additional ‘lines of defence’ within the charity were outlined, with monthly meetings of the Finance and Risk Committee focussing on transparency and accountability. Updates were regularly circulated to staff members. Regarding the programme of investments, the Investment Committee represented teams from across the charity, with a board of special advisors examining business plans and investments. The Chair of Trustees added that meetings had been held every three or four weeks during the past year in order to get the best outcomes for staff and the communities served. There was now more congruence between the Board and staff, with a steep learning curve set to change the organisation’s culture. Ultimate decision-making powers would remain with the Board of Trustees, but this would be augmented by the skills and experience from others, which would enhance decision-making.

A Panel member posited that the holding of a clear and comprehensive Terms of Reference was key and suggested that the Panel should receive a regular report in the future to report back on achievements and to publicise the improvements and successes of the charity. Another Panel member asked how outcomes could be quantified and scrutinised. The Interim Chief Executive explained that a theory of changes had been worked on to agree what the charity’s aims and intended outcomes would be before any bidding or investing was approved. The charity needed to show the enhancement of initiatives and interventions, being mindful of programmes which were already extant. C360 wanted to include the academic sector, to advise on governance matters, social impacts and outcomes of investments. The Chair of Trustees added that funding providers also needed to feed into what the desired outcomes would be, setting out performance measures to show impact and value for money. Universities could help provide resourcing for this. The Community Enabling Manager noted that C360 was a recipient of Voluntary Welfare Grant funding, and this was reported back on.

A number of Panel members praised the charity’s moves to improve and indicated that they would welcome updates on future successes and improvements.

A Panel member asked whether the Scrutiny Panel could receive reporting on all charities or community interest companies [CICs] which were in receipt of Council funding. Lucie Breadman, Strategic Director, suggested that the Community Enabling Manager could share with the Panel his regular monitoring report on all such partners in the charitable sector, covering the organisations that received Council funding. All Panel members indicated that they were content for this to be done.

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure, was asked for a summary of issues that were facing his portfolio in the future, and an explanation as to how the street-naming process ensured that local knowledge was used. The Portfolio Holder explained that if streets were to be named after people, this could only be done at least three years after those people had died. This time period was shorter than that previously set, as this was within the Portfolio Holder’s gift to decide. Parish councils and ward councillors put forward naming conventions and lists of potential names and it was not envisioned that this would change, or that non-locals would be involved in naming decisions.

Having been asked, prior to the meeting, to provide an update on the Garden Waste service, the Portfolio Holder laid out that there were now 26,739 subscribers to the service, which had increased by around 400 in the 12 months just passed. 28,005 wheelie bins were out under contract, with some households having multiple. The revenue target set had been £1,638,695, with £1.7m achieved even before year end. There had been a low percentage of missed collections recorded.

The Environment Act was due to come into force in 2026, and in preparation the Council would be starting collection of tetrapak containers as part of plastic recycling, starting in September 2025. Food waste recycling will need to be provided to all homes, including flats. Management companies will have a statutory duty to ensure that all properties received full recycling services. The Environment Act would provide the basis for enforcement once this came into effect in April 2026. The rollout date for expanded wheelie bin use was to be confirmed, but streets not receiving such bins would be rare.

A Panel member welcomed the exceeding of targets set and noted that Government was providing significant funding dependent on waste collection success, going on to ask how such funding might be affected by the changes to be made. The Portfolio Holder stated that the Council received £1.9m from Government in this manner. Government sources in DEFRA [Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs] had indicated that they believed that the Council should conduct more separation of waste for collection, but the approach would continue to be one of comingling. The Portfolio Holder was not of the view that there would be any meaningful effect regarding funding, and was of the view that households should not be made to use more than three types of wheelie bin. There was no formula as to how much funding might be reduced by.

The Portfolio Holder was asked what work was being done to prepare for the new unitary council being a waste disposal authority. The Portfolio Holder explained that there were quarterly waste strategy meetings for Essex which looked at existing collections and differences between current councils, considering how services would be harmonised and disposal carried out. The County Council currently incinerated waste for energy production, although there were suggestions made that the one existing incinerator would not be sufficient. A Panel member estimated that it would take around seven years to equalise services, Council Tax levels and charges, and argued that work on this needed to start now and be done swiftly.

Questions were raised around how to address any potential service failings or confusion. The Portfolio Holder urged elected members to report any failings to him, as he would ensure that these were resolved by officers to ensure no repetition of failings. Simplifying waste collection led to a reduction in missed collections.

The Portfolio Holder was asked if options from around Europe were being considered, such as any potential for using communal bins. The Portfolio Holder suggested that underground waste collections might be an option for new garden communities. An example was given as to where communal bins might be beneficial, or where other alternatives might work better than an individual wheelie bin service.

A Panel member referred to the business case for introducing wheelie bins, and content stating that this would reduce rates of sick leave, and asked whether reduced sickness rates had been achieved where wheelie bins had been introduced. The Portfolio Holder was asked how long it would take to see a positive impact on long-term sickness. The Portfolio Holder answered that sickness rates were at an average of 11 days on non-wheelie bin collection routes, and at 8 days on routes with wheelie bins. The Council had an ageing workforce, and had in place flexible ‘return to work’ and options for physiotherapy.

The Panel asked for the Portfolio Holder’s views as to the drivers of the recent 50% increase in fly tipping, and details of enforcement work carried out in this area. The Portfolio Holder acknowledged that fly tipping incidents reported had increased, but highlighted the increase in enforcement options, including the use of officers from Wise to identify incidents and issue fixed penalty notices [FPNs]. There had been evidence of individuals ‘overbooking’ more appointments than needed at the Shrub End waste site; Essex County Council [ECC] were working to identify those booking multiple appointment slots and were seeking to address this. As much education and enforcement as possible were being carried out to reduce fly tipping rates. Catching fly tippers would be increasing the statistics recorded in this area, with more incidents involving black bags dumped next to litter bins being recorded. This was being treated as a serious offence in order to increase deterrence. This was based on national guidance from ‘Keep Britain Tidy’. £400 Fixed Penalty Notices could be issued to fly tippers, alongside £200 FPNs for littering, with a 50% reduction in FPN charges if paid off early. The Council continued to seek to set balanced rates for FPNs.

A Panel member noted that there was significant fly tipping in their area, where there were high rates of residential renting, low-income households and households without car ownership. The Portfolio Holder was asked what proactive actions could be taken by the Council to prevent this, and whether there was scope to get partner organisations to help address fly tipping, such as charities which might be able to use or recycle unwanted items or materials. The Portfolio Holder outlined talks he had held with partners, such as to discuss possibilities for charities such as Emmaus to take furniture dropped off for recycling. The Head of Service at ECC had been one partner talked to regarding options. In Colchester a charge was levied by the Council for the collection of up to five items, but there was always more that it was possible to do. The Portfolio Holder emphasised the importance of the local knowledge held by ward councillors and gave assurance that ward councillors would always be consulted.

A member of the Panel expressed surprise that no officers had accompanied the Portfolio Holder to support his briefing, and that no written report had been provided in advance as part of the agenda. The view was given that officers should be in attendance to help answer technical questions, and that a report should be provided in advance to lay out content which could then be scrutinised. This would assist the Panel in sharpening its scrutiny work and ensure that members of Cabinet were held to account. The Chairman explained that the Panel had historically asked portfolio holders not to bring weighty slide decks or presentations to their briefings.

A request was made for the Panel to receive an update report at its meeting on 9 December 2025, to lay out progress made by the Leader of the Council, and Cabinet, towards the plans laid out in regard to local government reorganisation [LGR] work. This would offer the opportunity for the Panel to see outcomes and question the Leader of the Council as to delivery of his stated aims.

Owen Howell, Democratic Services Officer, notified the Panel that a request had been made by senior officers of the Council for the Panel to carry out pre-decision scrutiny of the new Customer Strategy and Digital Strategy, which were currently being drafted. This was being requested to be carried out during November 2025, and the Democratic Services Officer informed the Panel that he had followed its previously-expressed wishes to avoid adding significant items on to the agenda for the existing Panel meeting date on 11 November, due to that meeting being expected to concentrate on scrutiny of the draft Budget for 2026-27. The alternative of an additional meeting for November was given, and Panel members indicated their agreement for an additional meeting date to be sought.

With the addition of an extra meeting to the work programme, the Democratic Services Officer laid out a further request made by colleagues who had asked for the Panel’s consent to add an item on the draft of the updated Local Council Tax Support [LCTS] Scheme to be added to its work programme, for consideration in November. This had been described as an update which did not involve significant changes, so was provisionally recommended for adding to the agenda for the meeting scheduled for 11 November. Although that meeting would be considering the draft Budget for 2026-27, the assurances given were that the changes proposed for the LCTS were minor. The Panel was asked if it consented to having this item to the 11 November agenda and, subject to confirmation of the minor nature of changes proposed, agreed to this addition.

RESOLVED that the SCRUTINY PANEL approves its Work Programme, subject to: -

a) The scheduling of an additional meeting in November 2025 to consider the Council’s draft Digital and Customer Strategies