Meeting Details

Christopher Lee addressed the Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1).  The Council had recently received capacity funding for the Heart of Greenstead project, with further funding due soon.  However, it would take time to appoint the board and undertake community engagement.  In the meantime, could the funding be banked and a loan taken out against it? The interest could be used and the principal funding then used to fund Signpost for community engagement.  The Pride in Place guidance was clear that borrowing against a guaranteed revenue stream was permissible. A detailed plan had been submitted for the Cabinet’s consideration.

Councillor J. Young , Portfolio Holder for Housing, responded to thank Mr Lee for his contribution.  There would be Treasury Management requirements around how the funding could be held and used.  In respect of his assertion in his submission that there had been failures in community engagement, there had been considerable engagement, including a dedicated website and community events. She would refer his submission to officers involved in the project for consideration.

Anna D’Alessandro, Section 151 Officer, was invited to comment, and explained the Council’s processes for borrowing, the management of external funding and cashflow.  Where funding was received for a specific project, it was ringfenced for that project only. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, reiterated that the Council would ensure it followed the necessary financial governance processes relating to such funding.

John Burton MBE addressed the Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) on behalf of Colchester Civic Society. The Civic Society had supported the Council’s application for a grant to repair Holy Trinity Church but could not support the proposals for the changes to the churchyard. The churchyard looked uncared for due to the Council’s failure to maintain it.  If properly maintained it would be a green lung in the city centre.  The report did not mention the increase in the maintenance budget that would be required with the proposed changes.  It also did not mention the seven annual church services that would be allowed in the church annually. Neither did the report address whether the works proposed were within the meaning of the Open Spaces Act 1906.  The Civic Society’s major concern was the repositioning of the ancient boundary of the churchyard and the impact this would have on the historic street view and medieval/Roman street line. The current secure gated arrangement worked well and the Cabinet should take account of anti-social behaviour issues in other churchyards, which were now from necessity securely locked.  The police were requesting high levels of lighting which would impact on protected species. There were more needy causes for investment in the city. His observations were based in part on his expertise as a member of the Closed and Closing Churches Committee of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. A better strategy would be to concentrate on cleaning and maintaining the existing churchyard and then opening it to the public.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and explained that the proposed works to Holy Trinity Church had been considered carefully and agreed by the Planning Committee.  They also had public support. It was acknowledged that there were differences of opinion on issues such as the alignment of the railings. The intention was to create a green, peaceful area in the city centre and to open up the area and draw people in to create vibrancy. It would help showcase the Anglo-Saxon church tower and shed light on Colchester’s unique heritage. It was acknowledged that there had been issues with the maintenance of churchyards in the past, but the Council had to balance its resources with its many responsibilities. There was no legal impediment to the proposals. Lighting would be appropriate and the impact on bats considered. 

Councillor Law, Portfolio Holder for Communities and Public Protection, also responded and explained that the Council wanted to ensure that people felt safe when using the area. Concerns about anti-social behaviour were understood. A lot of work was undertaken by the Council and the Community Safety Partnership in tackling anti-social behaviour. Reported anti-social behaviour was declining in Colchester. The CCTV system had been upgraded. The gates to the churchyard would be locked at dusk each evening and the site would be monitored by street wardens. The Council also had a range of tools such as Public Space Protection Orders and Community Protection Notices at its disposal.  These were used actively to ensure residents were able to enjoy the city centre. 

Melina Spantidaki addressed the Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1).  It was noted that the ward councillors of Castle ward had expressed concerns about the proposal and that the Council had not taken account of the opinion of the community as a whole.  None of Christian denominations in Colchester supported the proposals for the churchyard.  The site was of historic significance and the proposal to modernise it was wrong. The proposals would also add an unnecessary burden on the Council’s budget. The police would not be able to deal with the security and anti-social behaviour that would arise.  The media had also reported that the proposed bidder was bankrupt.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that the proposed bidder was solvent and met the bid criteria. The Council was not disregarding public opinion.  The proposals had been agreed by the cross-party Planning Committee and the Council had undertaken a consultation and held open meetings. There had been a clear majority in favour of the proposals

Sir Bob Russell addressed the Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1).  He endorsed the comments of the Civic Society. The assertions in the report that the churchyard would be locked at night were not correct.  Whilst the bulk of the churchyard would be locked, the site would be open from Trinity Street. Therefore the site was still vulnerable to anti-social behaviour. It was noted that additional lighting and CCTV were proposed to address this.  However, these concerns could be addressed if the railings facing Trinity Street were retained.  This would ensure the entire churchyard would be locked at night.  This would lead to a significant saving in respect of the other security measures proposed and the funding used for other measures the city centre needed.

Councillor Cufoglu addressed the Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to raise the following issues:-

• Could clarity be provided on the future of the Environment and Sustainability Panel given that that there did not appear to be scheduled meetings after 12 February 2026.
• Could the Green Group be updated on forthcoming budget proposals.
• Could the Green Group be provided with a briefing or report on due diligence as promised at the last budget meeting.
• Could meetings be set up with the Portfolio Holders for Culture, Heritage and the Environment and Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure to share information he had compiled about maintenance and greening policies of neighbouring councils.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that Cabinet members would be happy to meet and receive information about good practice elsewhere. Group meetings had been offered on the budget.  It would be helpful if the Green group provided a list of topics they wished to discuss with the Portfolio Holder. 

Councillor Scordis, Portfolio Holder for Culture, Heritage and the Environment explained that dates for the Environment and Sustainability Panel had been set for the next municipal year. There may be a need to look again at the Panel and its terms of reference in the future, given the Council’s limited statutory responsibilities in respect of environmental issues. However, environmental issues would remain important for the council, particularly as it moved towards local government reorganisation.

The Director of Estates (Interim) submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Assets, introduced the report and explained that extensive work had been undertaken to identify which play parks were in greatest need of refurbishment.  An equitable spread across the city had been identified Three different levels of refurbishment were proposed: full refurbishment, partial refurbishment and resurfacing only.  Funding was coming from several sources, including section 106 contributions.  There had been a very positive response to the consultation and positive feedback from the communications that had been issued on the proposals.  If the decision were approved, work would begin at speed using a range of local contractors.  The work of the Corporate Landlord and Parks and Recreation teams on this project was commended.

Councillor Çufoglu attended and with the consent of the Chair, addressed Cabinet.  It was noted that it was proposed that several of the refurbished playparks would be transferred to parish councils.  Would the Council ensure that any transfer arrangements preserved the current high quality of maintenance, including the preservation of the glyphosate ban.  Despite being one of the largest districts in the county, the Council had not purchased Foamstream or explored its costs and therefore the full implications of this decision were not understood and it may lead to the reintroduction of the use of pesticides. There could be some merit in the relevant parish councils organising a joint contract for the maintenance of the play parks that were transferred to them. The Assets Plan agreed by Cabinet stressed that assets should not be transferred on the basis of savings but should be based on a clear commitment that they would be well maintained and that the transfer was in the public interest. The report also emphasised the need for residents, including children and young people, to take advantage of a safe resource that would meet their needs. The Health and Wellbeing Implications and the Environment and Sustainability Implications set out in the report were highlighted to Cabinet. 

Councillor Cory responded and explained that some play parks would be transferred to local communities in accordance with the Estates Plan and Voluntary and Community Assets Policy. They would only be transferred where they could be managed appropriately and to the same standard as the Council. This would involve the transfer of any relevant covenants protecting the play parks.  The point about the use of glyphosates could be addressed in guidance on maintenance. The programme was not based on savings but was driven by localism and the belief that resources and assets should be owned and maintained by local communities where possible.  Some commuted sums would accompany the transfers to help with maintenance costs. 

In discussion Cabinet members expressed their support for the proposals.  The response to the consultation proved the level of interest in play parks.  The engagement provided a learning opportunity to involve children in decision making on design and would help instil community ownership of the parks. Play parks provided free, healthy activity which was vital given the cost of living crisis. There were also clear mental health benefits for children in spending time outdoors and the Council should push this message in its communications on the project. It would also improve the accessibility of play parks.  It was suggested that ward councillors could have been given a wider role in the selection of play parks to benefit from the programme.  However it was emphasised that the selection of play parks had been based on their condition only.

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The Business Case for Capital Investment at Appendix 1 to the report by the Director of Estates (Interim) be approved.

(b) Authority for tender acceptance (once received) be delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive and Section 151 officer in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Resources and Assets on the basis that the overall project budget (£2.241m) was not exceeded.

(c) The specific risks in the report by the Director of Estates (Interim) and its appendices be acknowledged and accepted.

(d) The approach consistent with the Estates Plan and Voluntary and Community Assets Policy to transfer a proportion of the play parks to the remit of parish councils (subject to their agreement and due diligence requirements) be approved

REASONS

The Estates Plan introduced agreed by Cabinet in March 2024 commenced a new approach to the Council’s assets, making sure that they were well maintained and, if appropriate, giving opportunity to transfer out to other bodies should that be in the best public interest.  Allowing this refurbishment programme meant that some play parks would be transferred to Parish Councils ahead of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). 

Regardless of any transfer the refurbishment of these parks prior to LGR meant that the unitary authority was in the best possible position and would be able to focus on more immediate concerns.

These play parks have been assessed as requiring works to ensure that they were safe, fit for purpose, minimised maintenance, and cost requirements going forwards. Ensuring a comprehensive scheme of works meant that the public, children and young people continued to be able to take advantage of a key resource and that was it safe for them to do so, with appropriate park spaces provided throughout Colchester that would meet their needs.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Do-nothing: To leave the play parks as-is without further funding or refurbishment. This would not comply with the budget amendment agreed by Full Council in the 2025 budget and would risk degradation of the play park stock, increasing maintenance costs and risks to health and safety. In addition, strategic outcomes related to health and wellbeing would be more difficult to achieve. 

Refurbish all 76 playparks. All play parks did not require refurbishment currently, as was demonstrated by the analysis and prioritisation completed to determine refurbishment need. In addition, there was no budget for full refurbishment, and this option would have meant diverting funds allocated on higher priority projects.

The Director of Estates submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with the resolution from the Scrutiny Panel at its meeting of 22 January 2026.

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Assets, introduced the report and noted the supportive resolution made by the Scrutiny Panel following its consideration of the issue. The works proposed to be funded were to the roof and the mechanical and electrical systems and although they would not be visible, were essential to maintain the integrity of the Town Hall.  The proposals had been through the cross-party Estates Steering Group.  A de minimis approach was being taken as the future purpose of the Town Hall was uncertain, given Local Government Reorganisation.  However, should the contract for the works be let at a lower cost than anticipated there was provision to add additional works to the schedule.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, indicated his support and stressed the importance of properly maintaining the systems in the Town Hall that impacted on members and visitors, such as audio systems, and confirmed there would be funding for a programme of refurbishment.  It was hoped that the Town Hall would in future be a contender to be the heart of the new unitary authority.

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The project proposal be approved allowing the team to move from the Concept Stage to the Delivery Phase.

(b) Authority for tender acceptance (once received) to be delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive and Section 151 officer in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Resources and Assets. 

REASONS 

The decision was based on evidence from condition surveys that both the roof and the mechanical and electrical systems within the Town Hall had deteriorated to the point where proactive intervention was required. Several sections of the roof had reached end-of-life, displaying defects such as saturated or missing slates, failing asphalt coverings, compromised leadwork, and ageing rooflights, all of which increased the risk of water ingress and damage to the historic fabric. Similarly, key MEP systems including air-handling units, Low Temperature Hot Water circuits, condensers, chilled water plant and lighting infrastructure were outdated, at risk of failure, or no longer performing efficiently. Without timely investment, these issues would further escalate, leading to higher long-term costs, greater service disruption and increased risk to building users.

Given the Town Hall’s Grade I listed status and its importance as a civic and community asset, maintaining its structural integrity, safety and operational capability was essential. The recommended approach enabled the Council to address urgent risks, comply with statutory heritage requirements, and manage the works in a structured, phased manner that reflected both technical priorities and financial responsibility. Proceeding at this stage would protect the building, reduce ongoing maintenance liabilities and ensure that essential services continued to operate reliably and comply with health and safety regulations. 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

An alternative option would be to continue with reactive maintenance only; however, this approach carried significant risk and was not recommended, as surveys confirmed that key roof areas and MEP systems were already at or beyond their serviceable life and had suffered repeated failures. 
 
Further deterioration would likely result in increased emergency repairs, much higher long-term expenditure and potential health and safety implications, as well as avoidable damage to the Grade I listed fabric.  

The Head of Planning, Sustainability and Climate Change submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor Scordis, Portfolio Holder for Culture, Heritage and the Environment, introduced the report and explained that the Council had a statutory duty to publish a report detailing what policies, actions and objectives it had delivered, or intended to deliver in relation to conserving and enhancing biodiversity across its functions.  There was a lot to be proud of, including the introduction of the Environment and Sustainability Panel, the work of the Active Travel Team, the tree planting programme and the work to protect Middlewick and supports its designation as a Site of Special Scientific Interest. It needed to be borne in mind that this was not a statutory duty for a district council, and that Council had chosen to devote its resources to these issues, at a time when resources were stretched. 

Councillor Goacher attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet. Whilst it was noted that the report stated that Natural England had not introduced any species conservation strategies, could the Council introduce such strategies itself? It was noted that the report mentioned the glyphosate ban as a positive initiative, and Cabinet were reminded that there had been widespread media coverage recently about the potential harmful effects of glyphosates.

Councillor Scordis responded and explained that issues around the use of glyphosates was currently being looked at by the Council. He would investigate whether the Council could develop its own species conservation strategies and encourage liaison with Natural England on the issue. 

Councillor Çufoglu attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet. As the report referenced the Essex Local Nature Recovery Strategy, it was highlighted that in partnership with the Essex Wildlife Trust, Essex County Council and the Essex Local Nature Partnership, a new funding opportunity was available for community groups for nature projects.  It was noted that the Trees for Years programme had been cancelled.  Could the Council become more proactive in creating new networks for tree planting and consider the reintroduction of Trees for Years? The move to bring the Greening service inhouse was welcomed.  However the report did not acknowledge that “No Mow May” had not been fully implemented over the past two years. In respect of the reference to volunteer conservation work parties, the Castle Park volunteer scheme was paused, despite several interested volunteers.

Councillor Scordis responded and explained he would investigate the suggestion of the reintroduction of Trees for Years and the position on the Castle Park volunteer scheme.  

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure, explained that the Tree for Years project was very labour intensive for a small team. In terms of volunteers, they were a valuable resource but a service could not be run by volunteers alone and they needed to be led and carefully managed by officers. 

Councillor Law, Portfolio Holder for Communities and Public Protection, highlighted the importance of the cemetery as a green space and the benefits it gave the local community. 

RESOLVED that the publication of the Council’s Biodiversity Duty Report be agreed. 

REASONS

To ensure the Council complies with its mandatory obligation to produce a Biodiversity Duty report as detailed in the Environment Act 2021.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The Council could choose to make changes to the report before its publication. This could be accommodated within the deadline to publish the report of 26th March 2026. However, it was considered that it was as comprehensive and up to date as it could be. 

The Council could choose to not publish the Biodiversity Duty Report. However, this would mean it would not be acting in compliance with the obligations set out in the Environment Act 2021.  

The Chief Operating Officer submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor Pearson, Portfolio for Economic Growth and Transformation, introduced the report. It reported on performance at the half year point and demonstrated that of the 19 Key Performance Indicators, ten had been met and seven had not been met in full.  Of those that had not been met, the position was as follows:-

• Recycled waste: Performance was just below the target and there had been considerable discussion at Scrutiny Panel about how performance could be improved. This could involve the wider use of sanctions where households did not comply with the policy.
• Flytipping incidents: Two new fly tipping wardens were now in post. In addition in needed to be borne in mind that the definition of fly tipping had been widened,
• Number of households in temporary accommodation: This had been increasing since the repeal of provisions preventing no fault evictions had been lifted. There had been evidence that the increase had stabilised at the start of the year, but it had increased slightly again. It was hoped the position would improve in the coming months.
• Corporate Sickness: Long term sickness absence had increased slightly. Discussions were underway with the Head of People about the arrangements in place to support staff on sickness absence. 
• Waste and Recycling Staff Sickness: It was anticipated that this would improve with fleet transition and the roll out of wheeled bins.
• Additional Homes:  In view of the flat property market, the Council could not deliver new dwellings across Colchester in accordance with the target.

The report indicated benchmarking demonstrated that the Council’s performance was above the East of England median.

In discussion it was highlighted that the performance on rent collection had improved recently and was now above target. There were now 500 households in temporary accommodation. However, at its previous meeting the Cabinet had approved the revised Housing Revenue Account Business Plan which provided resources for the acquisition of a further 65 homers to help address this need. Performance on repairs was above target and work continued on the Decent Homes standard. A new strategy on homelessness and rough sleeping would be introduced in 2026. Staff sickness remained a challenge in a number of services, particularly in front line services who worked in inclement weather. In terms of recycling and flytipping, a greater emphasis on sanctions would be introduced. 

Overall the report demonstrated good performance, especially given that the resources available. 

RESOLVED that performance against Key Performance Indicators was noted and that where Key Performance Indicators have not been met, appropriate corrective action had been taken. 

REASONS

To review half year performance for 2025-2026 and ensure robust performance management of key Council services.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

No alternative options were presented to Cabinet. 

The Head of Economic Growth submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor Goacher attended and with the consent of the Chir addressed Cabinet to emphasise the biodiversity in Trinity Church churchyard.  It was already a green oasis in the city centre, although it was not well maintained. The work on the roof of the church was welcomed but there were serious concerns about the plans for the churchyard. It was possibly the oldest church in Colchester and was of great historic value. The creation of wide paths could lead to a loss of the existing biodiversity. It could also become litter strewn and need constant clearing, which could spoil the setting of the church. The existing setting could be improved through a relatively small investment in maintenance. The compromise suggested by Sir Bob Russell with the retention of the railings on Trinity Street should be explored. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and emphasised that the proposals needed to be seen in the context of the improvements throughout the city centre, leading up from St Botolph’s Priory. The proposals had been through rigorous processes, including Planning Committee and the process to obtain Town Deal funding. 

Councillor Çufoglu attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Cabinet.  He shared the concerns of the Civic Society and Sir Bob Russell about the maintenance of the churchyard.  As a ward councillor he had supported the Community Asset Plan application and attended numerous planning meetings on the application. He had encouraged the maintenance of wildlife and biodiversity on the site. Members of the civic society had shared concerns with him about anti-social behaviour on the site and Cabinet needed to respond to the concerns raised. It was already a green pocket in the city centre, which played a role in tackling air pollution and boosting biodiversity. 

In discussion Cabinet members raised several issues:-

• Concerns about biodiversity were acknowledged. However, there was a balance to be struck between protecting biodiversity and the objectives of the Town Deal project to provide public open space. The considerable public benefit to opening the space up as a quiet space for the public to enjoy in the city centre outweighed the potential harm to biodiversity.
• There were clear health benefits, particularly for children and young people, from access to nature and public open space. At present there was no access at all to the churchyard. Its location near the refurbished library meant that it would be an attractive resource for families and children visiting the library. 
• The project had already been subject to considerable discussion.  It had been approved by Planning Committee and through the Town Deal governance processes.  The decision before Cabinet at this meeting was a narrow one for the approval of the contractor for the external works to the churchyard, rather than a decision on the approval of the scheme. 
• Whilst concerns about anti-social behaviour were acknowledged, public spaces should not be surrendered to such behaviour. There were well established resources for managing anti-social behaviour, including CCTV and Police Community Support Officers. 
• There would be economic benefits to businesses in the city centre if footfall in the area increased. 
• Effective maintenance of the churchyard to ensure it remined clean and in good condition would be crucial. 

In summary, Councillor King explained that Cabinet was following through on the support for the project by the Planning Committee and from the public consultation.  The Cabinet was respectful of and valued the contributions from the Civic Society and other speakers at the meeting. Concerns about anti-social behaviour were acknowledged but Cabinet were persuaded that the investment and the Council’s record in managing and looking after public spaces warranted continuing with the scheme. Cabinet would ask what could be done further to protect the existing biodiversity on the site. 

RESOLVED that the contents of the report from the Head of Economic Growth be noted.

REASONS

To note the progress on the scheme.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Extensive public consultation had taken place which has informed the design of the proposal. 

This minute is not for publication as it contains exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

This minute is not for publication as it contains exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.