Meeting Details

Councillor David King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, gave a presentation on his work, and covered the current situation in regard to local government reorganisation [LGR]. The Leader’s responsibilities included oversight of Colchester Commercial Holdings Limited [CCHL] and Colchester Borough Homes [CBH], as well as the Strategic Plan which had been approved by Full Council. The Plan balanced ambition with realism and Councillor King laid out its six overall aims. The Council was small but influential as a district-level council. The Leader’s priorities included housing, tackling homelessness, core Council functions and meeting budget requirements. The Leader described collective delivery and portfolio holder oversight, partnership working with businesses and the Business Improvement District [BID], providing community leadership and moving forward with regeneration work and the Fit for the Future [FfF] programme.

Colchester had sought and secured opportunities and funding. The work of Team Colchester and the Town Deal and Levelling Up project work were described. Private sector investment was combined with business vibrancy and the Local Plan. The Heart of Greenstead project was an example of partnership working with other organisations.

Levelling up work included regeneration and change to increase confidence in the City. Team Colchester was looking at the St. Botolph’s project to deliver by 2027, including soft marketing of the Britannia site, as an opportunity before moving to the new unitary council arrangements.

The Leader described efforts regarding community cohesion, noting the national difficulties in addressing resettlements, and praising the vibrancy within the City caused by communities coming together to share from their different cultures, faiths and cuisines. The Leader stated his belief in welcoming new arrivals and helping them to adjust.

Successes had been achieved in tackling homelessness, but costs and challenges had increased, and different organisations had taken decisions to reduce spending and make cuts.

LGR had raised questions as to how it would affect staff and staff retention, and how the Council could best provide opportunities. The Council was under strain and it took time and energy to provide its public services. The options for LGR were described, showing the proposals for five and three unitary councils. The Council was now waiting to see which of the four different proposals would be approved by Government. The Council did not have much choice, but had to prepare for the future, and the councils in Northeast Essex were leading the way in starting to look at how transformation might work. A timeline was given for devolution and LGR, including the parliamentary processes involved.

The Mayoral Combined County Authority [MCCA] was being examined, including what potential actions and responsibilities it could cover. There was an expectation that the MCCA would start with a small central staff but would increase in size over time. Elections were expected for the Council and Essex County Council [ECC] in May 2026, alongside the Mayoral election. The new unitary authorities would be formed throughout 2027, leading to dissolution of the existing councils in 2028. The Leader was working cross-party in order to be inside the process and have Colchester’s views heard, with the Council being a junior partner and decisions being taken by ECC, Southend and Thurrock Councils. This collegiate approach had helped local views be heard. The Leader described his anger when he had heard that reorganisation had been planned without people being consulted, but followed by understanding that the Council had to engage with the process.

The Leader stated that testing had shown that unitary authorities worked best with populations of around 300k, whilst the Government’s target was for authorities to cover populations of around 500k each. Work was underway on how to combine district and county services, with social care and early intervention being key areas, including housing provision. Prudent budgets would be needed to produce leaner organisations. Some cross-party working was already underway, and officers and elected members would need to be onboard with the work needed. The Leader pledged to continue to share information and discuss matters, and then highlighted Colchester’s strengths, opportunities, investments and business indicators.

A Panel member praised the Leader’s approach to working with the County Council, and in providing information to the Council’s elected members. The Leader of ECC was also praised, and the view given that the Council had been treated better than district councils elsewhere in England. The Leader was asked as to whether the issue of voting rights in the MCCA had been resolved. The Leader understood that this had been resolved, and was unequal in terms of representation, being split 3-2-2 between ECC, Southend and Thurrock respectively. This would be a temporary arrangement before the MCCA could be formed by representatives of the new unitary councils instead.

Concern was raised about the possibility that 2026 Council and ECC elections might be cancelled. The Leader acknowledged the need to maintain democratic processes but did understand that both organisations were facing huge pressures and strain, with elections necessitating both to stop some work in order to run the election processes. Some people wanted to focus only on the Mayoral elections instead, but if elections were cancelled then there would be strain on those members who would have to serve longer terms than expected.

Answering questions as to the challenges from LGR and potential learning from others who had undergone the process, the Leader acknowledged it was a challenge to do the things that mattered, with robust financial management and to not pass on unsolvable challenges. The Council would need to be run well whilst putting time and energy into the transition work. Conversations had been held with those who had experienced this previously. Partnerships had to be built upon, and partners involved at an early stage. Questions as to support for the voluntary sector led the Leader to underline the value of this sector, and to confirm that the transition of LGR would need to involve support to help voluntary organisations to help others.

A Panel member asked what savings had been identified by the FfF programme. The Leader explained that savings would be seen in the emerging Budget for 2026-27 and would include the waste service reducing its staffing. The Budget would show a combination of drawing on reserves alongside cutting costs and reducing the size of the Council.

The Leader was asked how the Council could balance the housing crisis with Colchester’s status as a City of Sanctuary. The Leader explained that housing pressure from immigration was a small influence on housing demand, and that the City of Sanctuary did not increase demand on housing.

A Panel member underlined the importance of continuing frontline services during LGR, and warned that public perception of LGR was often that it was focused on high-level management structuring and arrangements, rather than service provision. The Leader stated that this was not his experience in the feedback which he had seen, but acknowledged there were many views on this. He was focussed on stretching to get better funding and find ways to make it go further. It was important to keep democracy local and to not be thought of as ‘feathering nests.’ Many officers were working hard to get ready for the transition.

The Leader was told that all the achievements shown had been from central Colchester, with a Panel member urging a fairer balance for investment and more attention for rural areas, and asking if this would happen as part of LGR. The Leader cautioned that LGR would not increase wealth on its own, but would increase the ways to do things better. The Leader also ventured that the City centre did matter for many who lived in rural areas, and that improving choice in the City would help them also. There were two arrangements in place for rural areas; the Shared Prosperity Fund and play area programme. It would be up to the current councillors’ successors to ensure that the voice of the whole area was heard in the new unitary authority.

Adam Wood, Revenues & Benefits Manager, detailed the four main recommendations being made and, responding to questions, confirmed that income from sources such as war pensions was already disregarded when calculating eligibility for support.

A Panel member noted that support was provided for around 7,100 of working age and 3,200 retired residents, but only 31 responses were received relating to the consultation. The point was made that this indicated it was not a popular topic, and concern raised that statistical analysis was carried out on such a small sample. The Panel member recommended that there should be a minimum percentage of responses before any analysis be attempted.

In answer to questions about the potential impacts on those claimants who did not meet the new criteria, the Revenues & Benefits Manager clarified that these changes would only apply to new claims being made and would not impact anyone already in the scheme, unless they were to cease claiming and then return to the scheme at a later date.

Amanda Gilmour attended and addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), to complain that the Colchester Canoe Club had not been given sufficient communication or respect by the Council. Ms. Gilmour stressed the work done by the Club on cleaning the Colne, and in supporting water sports. Ms Gilmour requested that the Council improved communication and refrained from talking about options to relocate the Club without first seeking the Club’s permission.

David Gilmour attended and addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), to call for the current navigation safety zone to be removed so that the Colchester Canoe Club could restart their activities. Mr Gilmour complained that the Council had not communicated in a way that he found adequate, stating that the project team’s communications had sometimes been obstructive, and that the Council had not followed the views of the Canoe Club.

Steve Waters attended and addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), to state that replacing a sluice was the preferred option of the Colchester Canoe Club, which wished to stay at its present location. Mr Waters also asked for reed and silt clearance, creation of a navigation channel to Middle Mill, creation of features to support wildlife and installation of portage points at Middle Mill and Eastgates. Mr Waters argued against renaturalisation of the river, stating this would cause an overgrowth of weeds. Mr Waters described the Club facilities which would be difficult to move to an alternative location.

Orlando Clarke attended and addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), to highlight the situation of residents of boats moored at King Edward Quay and to complain about the Council’s Estates Team’s removal of removing things described as resident improvements of the area. Mr Clarke stated that this had been done without consultation, and that the Council had refused to install safety equipment. Mr Clarke stated that requests had been refused, and allegations had been made that residents had stolen safety equipment which had not actually been installed. Mr Clarke raised concerns that the Council planned to significantly increase residential licensing charges and told the Panel that the Council had told residents that they would have to pay or remove their houseboats from the Quay by 19 December. Mr Clarke asked for the proposed changes to be halted out of fairness, and for a working group to be formed, consisting of boat residents, local elected members and officers, in order to seek a fair way forward.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council, gave his assurance that he would look into the situation and talk to the affected residents. The Leader explained that the Council had to seek to maximise income but understood the concerns raised. There was a significant difference in charges made by the Council for use of the Quay, compared to other marinas in private hands. Commercial mooring sites charged rates from £310 to £440, whilst the Council had been charging only £56 per month for mooring at King Edward Quay. The Leader agreed that it was important to look at how changes were considered and managed.

Daniel Jarman attended and addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), as the Estate Officer for Colchester Angling Preservation Society to outline the work of the Society, the benefits of angling, and to ask questions regarding the potential for angling along the Colne. Mr Jarman asked  why angling groups had not been involved in the process to address Middle Mill’s situation, why angling was not permitted on the Colne in Colchester (including on Council land), what anglers could do to seek the reopening of the river for angling and whether Scrutiny Panel members would support a return of angling along the river. Mr Jarman requested that anglers be involved as a stakeholder in future actions taken regarding the use of the Colne. Mr Jarman expressed a preference for a full reinstatement of a weir at Middle Mill and asked why the second sluice gate had been removed when repairs were made to the footbridge.

Robert Stancombe attended and addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), detailing his history of fishing along the Colne from Spring Lane to Middle Mill and stating that fish stocks had diminished by 90% along that stretch since the collapse of the Middle Mill weir, with areas now dry and vegetation taking over. Mr Stancombe requested that the water levels be restored to their historical levels to allow people to continue to enjoy the Colne.

Councillor Çufoglu attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Panel. Councillor Çufoglu thanked officers for the report and their engagement, but was disappointed that local councillors had not been briefed by the relevant portfolio holder prior to this meeting. Councillor Çufoglu raised his concern at the exclusion of ward councillors from this, and that concerns from a residents’ association regarding flooding risk and potential damage to building foundations had not been addressed. Councillor Çufoglu urged Cabinet not to ‘just do nothing’ and instead to publicise a plan for the Colne, including riverbank stabilisation and measures to improve the health of the river. A request was made to reduce the use of jargon when talking about the river and for ECC to be asked to contribute funding towards work on the Colne. Councillor Çufoglu recommended that ward councillors and the Canoe Club be given invitations to attend any briefings held on Middle Mill. Councillor Çufoglu pointed out that the description of Option D in the report should use the word ‘renaturise’ rather than ‘denaturise’, and went on to recommend that the remains of the weir should not be treated as scrap and that there should be a monument erected on the site.

Councillor Goacher attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Panel. Councillor Goacher noted that there had been a weir on this site since Saxon times, before which no structures had been at that location. Concern had been raised regarding the drying out of what had been the riverbanks, leading to the increased danger of trees falling. Councillor Goacher asked whether the situation had been examined in regard to preserving the trees and the health and safety of people in the vicinity of the Colne. Councillor Goacher also asked if the potential flooding risks to the Riverside Estate had been examined. The Environment Agency [EA] had spoken of this, and evidence was needed to assess the situation and inform residents, given the alarm caused. Councillor Goacher then asked if the Council had sought evidence regarding the claims made about dropping fish numbers in the river and then moved on to ask about rumours that alternative uses were being sought for the Castle Park boating lake. The Leader was asked to ensure that no decision be made on this without first involving residents.

The Chairman noted that parts of the Colne used to suffer from overgrowth of Azolla prior to the collapse at the Middle Mill weir, which had led to fish death. A Panel member asked Councillor Goacher if he knew what local residents would prefer to see happen with regard to the boating lake. Councillor Goacher’s view was that residents wished for it to return to use as a boating lake.

Lee Rainforth, Major Projects Director, outlined the Middle Mill project as a complex endeavour involving many stakeholders. Mel Rundle, Head of Greening, Streetcare & Safety and Bereavement Services, had been appointed as senior officer overseeing the project, and including engagement with the Canoe Club and how the Council could help manage their operations.

The Chairman stated that all groups needed to be engaged with and expressed his preference for engagement to widen and conversations to continue. A Panel member laid out the Panel’s role in examining decision making and ensuring that decisions were taken in a sound fashion and included appropriate consultation. A request was made for a summary of the communications plan for the Middle Mill project, as one member claimed that messaging had changed over time. The Major Projects Director was asked how consultation had been carried out with all stakeholders and how assurances could be given that the views would be properly collated and provided for Cabinet to consider.

The Major Projects Director explained that the report specified consultation, but this did not mean that a comprehensive consultation had been carried out at this stage, as the report took much existing data collected and moved towards identifying a final decision. The Major Projects Director was asked how information had been communicated to all stakeholders and how communications had been handled, given that the impression was that this had not worked in the manner it should have done, with stakeholders stating that this had not been handled well. The Major Projects Director elaborated that this was an options appraisal phase, rather than a phase for stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder data collected in July 2024 had been used to produce the report which was put before the Panel. A Panel member voiced concern about local ward councillors not having been consulted, and referenced past conversations at Panel meetings about the importance of informing and consulting councillors about major projects in their areas.

The Major Projects Director was asked if a sluice and weir could be reinstated, even with the work by ECC and its contractor on the footbridge having put concrete down into the river at this site. The Major Projects Director confirmed that the designers and contractors had allowed for the potential delivery of a new weir.

Answering questions on the safety zone which had been imposed, the Major Projects Director explained that colleagues had carried out an assessment of risks and safety issues. The Major Projects Director stated that the Colchester Canoe Club’s Licence had been suspended whilst parks service officers conducted a health and safety risk assessment, although he did not have the timescale for this on hand but could provide the details following the meeting, if the Panel wished to receive these. [Note: clarification following the meeting confirmed that the Canoe Club’s Licence had not been suspended].

A Panel member noted that the content for Option C, which involved relocating the Canoe Club, stated that no feedback had been provided. The Major Projects Director was asked why this was so. The Major Projects Director stated that the next phase would establish stakeholder needs. A matrix had been produced to help analyse these needs and land requirements. In follow up questions, a Panel member ventured that this meant that the report should not have stated ‘no feedback received’, as this gave a misleading impression.

The Panel discussed Option C, with a number of members picking up the views of the representatives of Colchester Canoe Club who stated that this option would be unviable for them and that a satellite site might be workable as a medium term solution, but noting the scale of the facilities involved at the Club’s current site.

Questions were asked about the boating lake and whether an options analysis had been conducted to seek different potential ways to fill it and bring it back into use. The Major Projects Director stated that this was outside the scope of the Middle Mill project but agreed to ask colleagues and report back on this. It was his understanding that options were being discussed. The Leader gave assurance that he understood the local and wider interest in this issue, and that the Council was expected to circulate information on this widely. Details on the timescales could be provided to Panel members. A view would need to be taken within the budget process as to how much money would be required to mend and fill the pool. There were many related issues and more detail would be given.

Further questions were asked regarding the flood plains downstream, the likely effects of lower river levels on trees and houses and whether these were addressed anywhere, along with the Council’s responsibility regarding river water levels. It was also asked if a wider look at flood plain management was needed, given instances of flooding upstream at Fordham and Eight Ash Green, where roads were sometimes impassable. The Major Projects Director stated that the Council owned the riverbed, but not the river itself, which was managed by the Environment Agency. The Agency and its consultants were content with the drop in river levels from a marine ecology perspective. Flood plain management was described as the responsibility of the Environment Agency.

The Major Projects Director was asked what chance there was of finding the necessary funding for any of the potential improvement works shown in the report, given there had not been any budget shown for such works. The Leader agreed that this would need consideration, especially for those options at the upper end of the range of costs. The Council would need to find a way to reconcile needs to best maintain the river’s condition and usability as much as possible. In response to a suggestion of funding via public subscription and work done potentially by a trust, the Leader promised to consider this, as the Council had a good record of partnership working, and working with the voluntary sector.

A request was made for the Council to find a way to create portage routes around lower Castle Park and at East Bay.

RECOMMENDATION to CABINET that: -

1. The environmental impacts of its decision making continue to be monitored

    

2. Cabinet considers the situation regarding the boating lake

    

3. Ways to support the Colchester Canoe Club be examined

    

4. Options for better access to the Colne be considered

Owen Howell, Democratic Services Officer, introduced the update Work Programme, explained the new requests from officers for items to be added to it, and reminded the Panel that it was up to the Panel itself to decide what items it wished to add to its work programme.

A Panel member asked what purpose there would be in the Panel scrutinising individual asset disposals, when it would be of more use to examine the overall strategy. Another member recommended that the Panel looked at the proposed sale of R1 and R2 investment sites, as well as the proposal for delegated authority to authorise individual asset disposals to be given to the Portfolio Holder for Resources.

Patricia Barry, Interim Head of Corporate Landlord, explained that the asset disposals were being brought forward in this way due to the speed of the market. Plans and strategies being looked at would be subject to market forces, but the governance processes took six to eight weeks, and the Council did not want to lose opportunities. The delegation of authority over disposals was being proposed to go to the Portfolio Holder for Resources alongside the Deputy Chief Executive, with regular reporting back to Scrutiny Panel to be instituted. There needed to be a balance between scrutiny and being able to react to the speed of the market. Some disposals might not be straightforward and, again, the need to balance speed with robust decision making was emphasised.

A Panel member pointed out that there were provisions for urgent action to be taken if needed, requiring consent of the Chairman of Scrutiny Panel. The Panel member asked that the Panel be shown evidence that necessary safeguards were in place. Councillor Pearson, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth, Transformation and Digital, agreed and described the Estates Steering Group in place which met frequently and included Councillors Lissimore, Dundas, Sunnucks, Jay, Cory and members from the Labour Group. This group would also examine any potential disposals and look to assess where disposals would be optimal. There would be a short window in which to carry out necessary disposals, due to LGR [Local Government Reorganisation]. The Portfolio Holder was asked if the Steering Group produced minutes. The Interim Head of Corporate Landlord explained that the Group did not produce minutes, but that terms of reference and the actions log could be shared with Scrutiny Panel.

Lucie Breadman asked if the disposal strategy could be brought to the Panel’s meeting on 27 January 2026, alongside the delegations of authority and all of the other related items concatenated into the one report, to be considered at the same time. The Interim Head of Corporate Landlord agreed that this would be possible, albeit with the need for the item detailing the proposed ‘sale of commercial investment site known as C3’ to come to Scrutiny on 9 December so it could go to Cabinet on 10 December for decision.

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 552.]