Meeting Details

Councillors Moffat and Warnes declared registerable interests, regarding Items 11 and 12. These interests related to both Councillors serving as nonexecutive directors of Colchester Commercial Holdings Ltd. The advice received from the Monitoring Officer was that both members could speak as visiting councillors for Items 11 and 12 but would have to leave the room whilst the items were discussed.

Councillors Rippingale and Smith declared other registerable interests, in that they both served as Board Members of Colchester Borough Homes. It was confirmed that this interest would not bar them from participating in any items on the agenda.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 2025 be approved as a correct record.

Mr Richard Bond attended and addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) and in his capacity as Co-Chair of Unison Essex. Mr Bond outlined his 40-year experience working on grounds maintenance in parks and of central government budget cuts. Staffing levels were described as having dropped from nearly 60 to 38 over the past decade, and concerns were raised as to the effects in weed growth and a worsening in appearance of parts of the area. Mr Bond urged consideration of the effects to staff which would result from future options as to the running of the street care and grounds maintenance service. Unison welcomed the proposal to bring the service back in house and was described as having a good relationship with Amphora Trading Ltd but did have concerns that the City Council had not run a grounds maintenance service for 28 years. There were important factors such as ensuring that the correct machinery was leased. Procurement officers were invited to visit the idVerde depot to assess what machinery was being used, and to consult with the staff. Mr Bond welcomed any feedback and asked if the Council and Unison could commence dialogue from November in order to discuss the change in service provision, following approval by Cabinet.

The Chairman thanked all the staff for the work they did and for the offer of dialogue and a visit to the depot. Richard Block, Chief Operating Officer, informed the Panel that the service was starting to use more electric equipment, about which more input could be given. A Panel member stated that he had been informed that Unison was seeking reassurance as to how the transition would be managed.

Councillor King acknowledged the points made and described what had to happen in the transition. Amphora Trading was the commercial arm of the Council, but held a public service ethos, with its Board being led by councillors.

Councillor Paul Smith raised the recent changes to Council IT security and the disruption these had caused for some users, and councillors in particular, including in communications with residents. The need for cyber security was understood, but Cllr Smith stated that poor implementation and lack of consultation and guidance had caused issues, especially around navigating the new precautions and identifying problems. The Chairman underlined the difference between councillors and officers, and the need for this to be understood.

Councillor Pearson, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth, Transformation and Digital, accepted the concerns and criticisms. A number of councillors had communicated issues and concerns regarding the swift roll out of the new security measures. Darren Kidson, Interim Head of Digital, had identified the need to strengthen security and had now made an offer to discuss this with the Scrutiny Panel, or at an all-member briefing. It was agreed that an all-party working group should be formed, including the Chair of Governance and Audit Committee and the Chairman of Scrutiny Panel (or their representatives). Councillor King, Leader of the Council, Richard Block, Chief Operating Officer, and Ben Pyett, Technical Architect & Acting Technology Delivery Manager, would also be members of the group. Councillors were asked to inform the Portfolio Holder of Ben Pyett if they continued to experience ongoing issues. The guidance from Council ICT was that councillors should use Council IT equipment, if possible, as these devices met the security standards and it was easier for ICT officers to offer support.

RESOLVED that the SCRUTINY PANEL add an item to review the roll out of the new cyber security measures on to its future Work Programme.

Councillor Lee Scordis, Portfolio Holder for Culture, Heritage and Environment, covered events over the past year, including the concerts in Castle Park. The Council was seeking ways to tie communications in to offers, to expand what visitors might do when coming to Colchester for events. Tourism brought in around £4.5m to the area over the year, supporting over seven thousand jobs across the area.

The Visitor Centre at the Hollytrees Museum helped to guide and offer deals from across Colchester. The area’s reach was being spread across East Anglia, such as by adverts on Greater Anglia trains and in stations. The Council was looking to roll out such adverts across the region. There was a small budget for social media, and the team was being inventive and spreading its reach. Culture was an important element, alongside local history; venues included the Mercury Theatre, the Arts Centre and First Site. A range of funding grants had been secured and savings made.

Urgent repairs were needed for the roof of the Castle, projected to take around a year to complete. Work was still needed on the Natural History Museum, which would need to close temporarily to conduct parts of the work. Work was also required on Hollytrees Museum.

The Castle had welcomed around 73k visitors over the past 12 months, seeing an increase in income. VAT exemption possibilities were being explored. A range of exhibitions had been hosted, such as the Margaret Cavendish event in Hollytrees, and the Mythical Creatures exhibition now underway, with future exhibitions scheduled. Heritage Open Days had been a success and attracted many visitors. 

At the Roman Circus site, Amphora Trading Ltd was working to provide 5G access at the site. Interpretation boards had been installed throughout the City, with guided tours being conducted from Hollytrees Museum. Many tour groups of overseas and older tourists were drawn to Colchester. All UK destinations found themselves competing with low-cost holidays across the rest of Europe, but the Portfolio Holder expressed his view that the Council should do what it could to encourage tourism in this area.

A Panel member asked for information as to the importance of culture to the local economy. The Portfolio Holder stated that culture was vital to Colchester, with Essex County Council referring to the City as the Essex capital of culture. An example was the impending Colchester Fringe Festival, organised by volunteers. For every pound invested in cultural attractions, four pounds were generated within the local economy, with visitors coming for cultural attractions and then utilising local hotels, shops and restaurants. This generated new jobs, training opportunities and careers.

The Portfolio Holder was asked what he personally had worked on, and what he was aiming to achieve in the coming 12 months. The Portfolio Holder told the Panel that he wanted to fundraise for a Boudicca statue, and to successfully connect events with communications to advertise local offers to people visiting Colchester. Work was needed to identify what the Council wanted the Hollytrees Museum to be, especially now entry was no longer free. An option was for it to be a museum of social history, hosting exhibitions and seasonal events.

Information was requested as to work done within the Environment part of the portfolio. An element of this work was described as working towards net zero carbon emissions within the Council, examining future options and feasibilities. There were challenges, such as the difficulty in making buildings such as the Town Hall carbon neutral. The Council was working with the University of Essex on possibilities for a heat pump network, potentially linked to the planned garden community. Much work on sustainable transport was being conducted, with encouraging possibilities for the Colchester bike hub, including the potential for the Council to buy a building onsite to allow more services to be provided and expanded opening hours for secure cycle storage. 

A dedicated bus stop for the Zoo was being sought. A pedestrian crossing or lowered speed limit would be needed and this had led to issues being raised by Essex Highways.

The Chairman reminded the Portfolio Holder that Scrutiny Panel had previously recommended that Cabinet consider whether Full Council should be asked if its view was that a more pragmatic approach should be taken to mitigating the declared climate emergency, and whether the Council’s financial situation should change its approach to mitigation actions in this area. The Portfolio Holder acknowledged that ambitious targets had been set and were likely not achievable, therefore the Council was looking to move to adopting national target levels instead, which would be more achievable. This was due to economic and financial changes.

The Portfolio Holder was asked how Full Council could declare a Climate Emergency, and then see Cabinet caution that it must be pragmatic around costs of mitigation actions. The Portfolio Holder stated that Government funding was being sought, and asked what services the Panel member would want to see cut in order to fund additional mitigations. E-cargo bikes and e-bikes could now be hired, but there was still a high density of short car journeys being made. The expected move to unitary councils was, in the Portfolio Holder’s view, a necessary move in order to achieve more use of buses and the use of electric bus vehicles. There was also already a pilot scheme in place to reduce idling of vehicles when stationary, with money obtained for signage.

A Panel member asked what could be done to encourage an increase in hotel capacity within the City. The Portfolio Holder agreed that capacity limited the potential for local tourism and stated his preference to not increase the number of rental properties in the area [e.g. AirBnB rentals]. There was clearly demand for local accommodation as the Planning Service was receiving applications for properties to be converted to holiday let properties. More hotel spaces were needed and the expansion of the George Hotel/St Nicholas Hotel was given as a positive move. When asked if there were metrics for the length of stays in Colchester, the Portfolio Holder explained that data from businesses was helpful, such as showing increased footfall in Culver Square due to the Soapbox Derby. It was hard to gather some data, such as visitor numbers at free museums, and it was often hard to ascertain the reason for people’s visits to the area. Claire Taylor, Visitor and Cultural Services Manager, informed the Panel that there was now a visitor survey being conducted at the Visitor Centre, The number of completed surveys was not yet statistically relevant, but once enough were collected, a report would be produced, including data on why people had come, where they were staying, and answers to open-response questions, asked to see what visitors thought.

A Panel member recollected that there used to be an app which showed information from around the area and asked if such an app could be used to survey and collect data. Another Panel member asked what could be done to attract visitors to the wider Colchester area into the City itself, and whether there were any targets as to tourist numbers. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that there were no current targets and that he would be happy to receive recommendations on this from the Panel and then examine their feasibility. The ’Visit Colchester’ Team was working with the local Business Improvement District ambassadors and others to look at options in the run up to Summer 2026. Suggestions from councillors would be welcomed.

When asked as to one action which the Council could take to increase tourism over the next five years, the Portfolio Holder stated that, subject to money being available, he would want to look at holding Roman era and Civil War reenactments as spectacles and educational opportunities. The Portfolio Holder expressed a wish to purchase the rest of the site of the Roman Circus but admitted the difficulty, given development on parts of the site. The Chairman suggested holding events to mark the 250th birthday of John Constable, seeking distribution of culture and heritage advertising in places offering visitor accommodation and exploring ways to make Oyster Feast a bigger event, with spectacles held for the public on the High Street and possibly an opportunity for local produce to be sold. 

The Visitor and Cultural Services Manager outlined how expensive flyer distribution was, often not being financially viable. The Visitor Centre staff did much to provide informative literature about the local area and officers would be happy to take recommendations as to where information literature could be provided. The Portfolio Holder pledged to discuss Oyster Feast with the Mayor regarding options to open it up more as a public event. There were some issues with seeking a road closure for the High Street, but the Portfolio Holder expressed his general support for this.

The Portfolio Holder was asked what the Council could do to work with neighbouring districts, as well as parish councils, to tackle antisocial behaviour [ASB] and agreed that partnership with these councils was necessary. The Portfolio Holder would be happy to attend meetings of these councils to work with them. The Panel discussed a number of ASB issues that had been encountered in the parts of Colchester bordering other authorities such as Babergh District.

The Chairman thanked the Portfolio Holder for his briefing and gave congratulations to the Portfolio Holder and officers for successfully bidding for a range of funding grants.

Councillors Moffat and Warnes (by reason of being Board Members of Colchester Commercial Holdings Limited) declared an ‘other registerable interest’ in the following item pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 7(5). Both removed themselves from the meeting during discussion of this item.

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure, laid out the long running work done towards bringing these services back in-house. The climate, market and local government situation had all changed over this time. The option of moving to LATCo [local authority trading company] provision of the service had not initially been explored in detail but had now been considered and shown in the report which was now before the Panel. The future budget for the service area was £1.9m for 2026 and the same for 2027. If the contract went out for retendering by an external contractor, the costs would increase significantly and be at least 20%, which would necessitate significant reductions in service, such as fewer grass cuttings at a time when the Council sought to increase grass cutting when necessary.

Examples of efficiency and modernisation work were given, such as the use of a robotic grass cutter to cut verges on Balkerne Hill without needing any lanes to be closed.

By moving greening and street care work to Colchester Amphora Trading, there would be a saving of around £200k on the pension contributions for the staff employed. Staff would not receive the same terms and conditions as Council staff paying into the Local Government Pension Scheme [LGPS] but would still benefit from a good pension and better terms than those currently offered by idVerde. The Portfolio Holder noted that Braintree and Tendring District Councils both did more work in-house, with some use of external contractors. The proposed move would mean better key performance indicators [KPIs] could be set, health and safety improved, and an emphasis on the public sector ethos given. The specifications for the contract with Colchester Amphora Trading would set minimum standards at the same level of current set standards, but with the understanding that ways to improve these would be sought. There were opportunities for improvement through  the removal of profit by external contractors, morale improvements from direct employment conditions, and an improvement in work effort and quality stemming from this.

The Panel discussed the projected pension savings and expected improved flexibility of service by not continuing with an outsourced provision. One member ventured that advice from UNISON would be helpful, using staff expertise as to the new service provision and types of equipment needed. Concern was raised that inflation would cause pressure on the cost envelope set, and that if this were not to be increased then some service cuts would be necessary. Transparency as to where these might be made was urged, along with the arrangements where work is done on behalf of Colchester Borough Homes [CBH], which generated recharges levied on the local tenants of CBH-managed properties. Mel Rundle, Head of Greening, Streetcare & Safety and Bereavement Services, confirmed that CBH tenants paid for work, with CBH contributing financially to part of the background Housing Revenue Account [HRA] costs incurred by the Council. When asked if a reduced service would mean reduced charges to CBH tenants, the Head of Greening, Streetcare & Safety and Bereavement Services answered that improved efficiency might lower the costs to CBH and tenants. A zonal approach was proposed to increase operational efficiency and gain value for money via simplified schedules of works.

A Panel member laid out that it was currently difficult for community groups to request the ability to take on ownership of Council land and asked how it might be possible for communities to take on local spaces for community use. Information was requested as to the governance relating to this and ways in which the Council might be able to make it easier for approaches to be made. The Head of Greening, Streetcare & Safety and Bereavement Services underlined that much of the Fit for the Future [FFF] programme was focused on community support, including what the Council could do to help communities access, use and administer their local spaces for their own purposes. Many asset transfer requests were received, with an example being the potential transfer of play parks to the local parish council, which could potentially reduce the financial burden on the Council. 

The Council currently had a mechanism to vary the contract with idVerde to reduce costs when assets were transferred to local groups or parish councils. The Panel member requested sight of the policy governing these matters, stating that some officers did not give the impression that it was possible. The process was described as overly complex and more support was requested for applicants, both from the Council and potentially involving partner and umbrella organisations. The Head of Greening, Streetcare & Safety and Bereavement Services gave an example of the transfer of a woods and bike track to Eight Ash Green Parish Council, which was straightforward as parish councils were local government bodies. Another example was given, the community allotment project, which had been held up as it might require approval from the Secretary of State. Once an asset was transferred, this was in perpetuity and so applicants were required to show that they could sustain upkeep and funding. The Panel was cautioned that even larger financially secure organisations could encounter problems, whilst parish councils were easier to work with, in regard to the legislation in place.

A Panel member posited that, were there to be significant levels of assets being transferred away from the Council, then this would necessitate details of the financial implications to be included in the financial analysis, with the expectation that there would be a reduction in budget requirements. Where land titles remained with the Council but a reduction in services was experienced, this eventuality was not covered in the report provided. Likewise, there was no content to cover where land titles might be transferred to parish councils. Terms and conditions would be expected if parish councils were to take on the costs of grounds maintenance if Colchester Amphora Trading reduced the service level provided.

The Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure stated that caution was required regarding asset transfers. One option was for assets to be transferred and then maintained by the Council in return for payment by the new owners. If a town or parish council were to take on assets, they would be required to set out how they would maintain and fund them.

When asked by the Panel for the view of Colchester Amphora Trading, Simon Coward, Managing Director, described the company’s excitement at the opportunity to broaden the business, fitting place maintenance with place shaping work. Colchester Amphora Trading worked closely to support the Council, with any profit generated invested into service improvements. Operations were commercially driven, but with a public service ethos.

A member of the Panel described his view that the recommendations, as laid out, were vaguely worded. His preference was to see a specification of the work proposed for inclusion in the service contract with Colchester Amphora Trading, and the requirements to be placed on the company, in order for elected members to be able to assess whether value for money could be shown. Risk analysis was noted as a key concern, along with the need to be clear as to how oversight would be carried out to ensure that the contract specifications were being met.

The Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure restated that the benchmark set would be the minimum specifications laid out in the current contract with idVerde and added that KPIs would be laid out for the proposed contract with Colchester Amphora Trading. The initial service levels required were considered to be a minimum level, and the Council would push for improvements.

The Panel considered further the information provided as to expected pension savings, and the proposal not to provide staff employed by Colchester Amphora Trading with the same pension provisions as Council staff. A suggestion was made by a Panel member that the Panel could examine this in the future. The Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure emphasised that Colchester Amphora Trading pension arrangements were competitive but not at the ‘gold plated’ level of the Local Government Pension Scheme.

The Portfolio Holder was asked about the potential for company profits to lead to corporation tax being incurred by Colchester Amphora Trading, potentially mitigated by capital allowances. A Panel member noted that Teckal companies such as this were treated in some ways like departments of their parent authorities and asked why it would not be possible for rates charged for work to be reduced in the event that profits were generated.

In response to questions regarding the projected budget of £1.9m per year for the next two calendar years [2026 and 2027] being a reduction on the current budget of £2.4m and not increased between 2026 and 2027, the Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure explained that the £1.9m would be subject to GM87 [Grounds Maintenance 87, a ground maintenance index used for indexing contract rates] in future years, with reductions being front loaded. An outcome-based contract was sought, which would not be a like-for-like replacement of services. This would make direct comparison with idVerde impossible. The new contract would avoid waste, such as where currently unnecessary grass cuts were being carried out due to contractual requirements. A flexible approach would reduce such unnecessary work. Whether the future service was in-house or contracted out, there would be significant effects either from improved pension provision or from an increase in profits taken out respectively.

The SCRUTINY PANEL resolved under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements)(Meetings and Access to Information)(England) Regulations 2012 to exclude the public from the meeting for the following item as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

[The record of the further consideration of this item is recorded as confidential minute 545.]

RECOMMENDED to CABINET that the proposed recommendations relating to Greening and Street Care & Safety, as detailed in the Cabinet report, be approved, but noting the Scrutiny Panel’s concern as to how service standards will be maintained, and on the understanding that extra detail relating to financial implications of the transition to a new contract with Colchester Amphora Trading Limited be provided and considered.

Councillors Moffat and Warnes (by reason of being Board Members of Colchester Commercial Holdings Limited) declared an ‘other registerable interest’ in the following item pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 7(5). Both removed themselves from the meeting during discussion of this item.

Councillor Warnes, with consent of the Chairman, addressed the Panel as a visiting councillor. Councillor Warnes spoke of his concerns about any further delays to the review of the Local Plan, in light of the delays requested by some members who had sought additional information on matters such as infrastructure. Councillor Warnes referred to recent ministerial involvement regarding Stockport Council, which had continued to delay the review of their Local Plan, leading to a minister stepping in to make clear that unreasonable delays would not be tolerated, and to give the Council deadlines as to when they must move to an options stage of the process. Councillor Warnes stated that delay might narrow the Council’s control over spatial matters as to where housing allocations might be set. Councillor Warnes went on to note that the Council’s economic development strategy documents did not mention mutuals [companies or organisations] and state his view that developing their ability in the local economy would be advantageous. The E-cargo bike scheme and a local shared-living project were given as examples.

The Chairman noted that the Panel could not challenge the Strategic Plan itself, as this was agreed by Full Council, but was to consider the refreshing of the Strategic Plan Delivery Plan [SPDP]. The Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation likewise noted that it was not within the power of Cabinet to change or remove any of the Strategic Plan priorities, with the SPDP being refreshed, rather than replaced. The current strategic outcomes had been agreed in 2023 and ran until 2026, with the current Strategic Plan ending in 2026. Full Council would then need to set a new plan for the remaining lifespan of the Council.

The categories within the Strategic Plan were outlined, with acknowledgement that any mention of mutuals was missing from the document. The latest action plan to address the climate emergency was on the website, covering buildings, vehicle fleet, biodiversity, lowering emissions, increasing air quality, supporting ‘reduce, reuse and recycle’ efforts and energy-efficient changes to homes and working. 

Confirmation was given that the Section 151 Officer had examined the financial implications and agrees with the recommendations made within the report presented to the Panel. The changes put forward relate to the specific ways in which the aims of the Strategic Plan were trying to be achieved. A range of actions were recommended for removal, as they had now been completed. Compactor bins had been introduced at several sites and had proven to be successful, whilst another example was that funds were now in place and being accessed for work in line with the priority of using resources effectively for current and future tenants of the Council. New play park upgrades had also been rolled out across Colchester

An additional 2-year capacity to tackle fly tipping across the City was proposed for addition as a new action. A further new action had been recommended for inclusion; ‘Invest in our communities with a fund to support asset ownership, growth, and community led services and initiatives to help more self-sufficiency and local empowerment in readiness for Local Government Reorganisation [LGR].’ This was new, as the current SPDP had been agreed prior to LGR being introduced in Essex. 

The Portfolio Holder was asked to explain why the action relating to the aim of converting Cymbeline Meadows into a nature reserve had been removed, responding that this was because it was no longer possible for the Council to take on this work due to the financial situation. There were costs involved with purchasing the land which was not already owned by the Council, and costs related to land conversion.

Mel Rundle, Head of Greening, Streetcare & Safety and Bereavement Services, explained that this had been part of a five-year plan, with much work carried out, but would require around £90k more funding to complete, which was not available. The area was now intended to be used in the future as a way to carry out biodiversity net gain work, including potentially as biodiversity offsetting for future development work. Further questions from the Panel led to the Head of Greening, Streetcare & Safety and Bereavement Services answering that inflation had impacted the project, with project costs rising and the project leader leaving the Council, meaning that the Council no longer had the necessary expertise in place. There was already much tree planting carried out, and some funding had been available but had needed to be reallocated to a more urgent priority. This project had been paused, rather than cancelled.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council, stressed that the advice was clear that flood plains like this should not be built upon. This did not totally rule out any potential for developers to do so, but the risk was slight. The Council had made improvements to the land it owned already, with nature reserve status being the natural next step to which the Council could progress it. The land was in a better state than it was previously, and the Council continued to need to manage its competing priorities. A Panel member stated that the site was now for sale on the open market, and their view that a purchaser would only want it to use the site for housing. Concern was voiced that the project had not proceeded due to the funding shortfall of £90k, and that this showed the problems with the Climate Emergency Programme. Discomfort with removing this item from the SPDP was voiced by Panel members, with the Panel discussing whether to recommend that Cabinet leave this action in the revised SPDP, to reflect it being paused rather than cancelled. Another suggestion was for a recommendation calling on Cabinet to investigate how this situation had arisen and to seek lessons in order to avoid the Council overcommitting itself in future projects.

The Leader suggested that this item could return to the Panel in the future, to show the scope of the Cymbeline Meadows project and to explain and provide more detail.

RECOMMENDED to CABINET that the action, ‘Work with communities and grant funders to pursue the ongoing development of Cymbeline Meadow into a nature reserve’ not be removed from the Strategic Plan Delivery Plan as part of the 2025-26 Plan refresh.

RESOLVED that the SCRUTINY PANEL approves its amended Work Programme, as shown in the supplementary agenda document for this meeting.