Meeting Details

A statement was read out on behalf of Mr Nick Chilvers, who requested that the Scrutiny Panel examine any decision or deal for Colchester Amphora Trading to run the Holy Trinity site in the future, assessing demand for the site, risks and liabilities, and ascertaining the lead officers in charge and points of contact for information or complaints.

Councillor Cory attended and, with permission of the Chairman, addressed the meeting to raise concerns regarding highways maintenance by Essex Highways, and the intention of Essex County Council [ECC] and Essex Highways to proceed with commissioning a new £2bn-£2.5bn seven-year contract for highway maintenance which would bind all successor unitary authorities in Essex. The Colchester and Wivenhoe area issues with roadworks and diversions were highlighted, such as the recent closure of Colne Bank Avenue [in Colchester]. Councillor Cory argued for a more sensible programme of road works, with better coordination and minimisation, with cooperation between utility companies and Essex Highways. Councillor Cory asked for scrutiny to be carried out on Essex Highways and the proposed new contract for work.

The Chairman voiced willingness to look at this subject, ensuring that the consideration of the matter remained at the strategic level. A Panel member noted that such a request for consideration of a new matter would normally be made in writing to the Clerk of the Scrutiny Panel, and cautioned that this was a vast subject and, should Essex Highways attend, it would need to be broken down into sections. Utility companies had a statutory right to carry out roadworks but no statutory duty to coordinate with the local highways authority. Reasons for the disruptive effects from roadworks would need to be ascertained, and the specific issues laid out, such as how the issue of work permits is handled by Essex Highways, so that the Panel could identify who best to invite to any scrutiny session. Another Panel member suggested that the two main issues were the coordination and control of roadworks, and secondly the implications and impacts of the proposed new County contracts for highway work. Questions were asked from the Panel as to what the infrastructure deficit was in Colchester and what was needed.

The Chairman suggested that this topic be considered for the Panel’s work programme for 2026-27 in order to allow the Panel time to consider what it wished to do. Councillor Cory suggested that the proposed contract implications be examined prior to the end of the 2025-26 municipal year, mindful of the contract processes. The Colchester infrastructure deficit was described as being in the hundreds of millions. In response to a Panel question as to what scrutiny of this matter was occurring at ECC, Councillor Cory confirmed that this was being carried out.

Councillor Pearson, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth, Transformation and Digital, provided an overview of the report, with a review and refreshing of the framework, in alignment with the Council’s Strategic Priorities. The proposed additions and amendments were laid out, with some content also going before the Governance and Audit Committee when Colchester Borough Homes [CBH] presented their annual report to that Committee. The implications of local government reorganisation [LGR] had been given consideration as part of the process of refreshing the KPI framework.

The Council’s aim regarding data and cyber security was to provide security, but balanced with a customer-friendly approach. There had been tweaks made to the sickness KPI and detail added to the KPI for temporary accommodation. Scrutiny Panel had previously requested a way for councillors to be informed as to how the Council would identify and assess the level of temporary accommodation needed. A methodology had not yet been developed, but this was being pressed.

New culture KPIs had been set out, including visitor numbers for museums and events. Public health metrics were also under consideration for inclusion.

A Panel member welcomed the new targets, especially when relating to the use of museums and attendance at cultural events, but asked if the Council should include a measure as to income generated by its sports and leisure facilities. Another Panel member suggested that it was necessary for the Council to examine what was done to attract visitors to Colchester, looking at visitor numbers but also judging the success achieved by the Council’s activities. Concern was also raised about the performance figures relating to fly tipping. The Portfolio Holder saw no reason that leisure income could not be shown and pledged to raise this with officers. Lucie Breadman, Strategic Director, explained that attendance numbers at Charter Hall events were covered under the numbers shown for attendance at Council-supported events. The Portfolio Holder described recent Leadership Board discussions of visitor levels for Colchester. The Portfolio Holder for Culture, Heritage and Environment was keen to show figures, but there was no easy wat to identify the destinations of visitors. An example was that it was not possible to get data on hotel stays or the number of restaurant covers provided. There was however data available on Zoo visits and attendance at events such as the Summer Park concerts. The Strategic Director added that Colchester Amphora Trading had commissioned an economic impact study relating to event visitors; this could be shared with members.

The Portfolio Holder addressed issues with fly tipping, which needed to be carefully monitored, and informed the Panel that he would discuss this with Mel Rundle, Head of Greening, Streetcare & Safety and Bereavement Services. Comments were made that it was good that proactive work was underway to address the problem, but alarm sounded at the high level of incidents.

A Panel member queried the 159% outcome shown for rent collection and asked if this was an error. The Portfolio Holder agreed that this figure was incorrect. 100.13% was the actual figure, achieved because there had been 51 weeks of collection in the previous year, due to 2024 being a leap year.

The Portfolio Holder was questioned on the figure given for affordable housing development, with a Panel member asking if this was not proportional to the increase in the target for expected housing and whether it should be much higher and include proposed housing on the R1 and R2 sites of the Northern Gateway project. The figure shown for temporary accommodation need was also questioned, with a view from a Panel member being that the total shown would mean around 40% of Colchester’s population would be in temporary accommodation. The Portfolio Holder explained that the target of 400 for affordable housing development was being reviewed, whilst the level of demand for temporary accommodation had thought to have peaked but had then further increased. A predictor of future need was being sought but this had proven to be difficult. There had been a nationwide reduction in new build properties due to private sector concerns regarding profitability.

A Panel member asked if the KPIs shown were tangible measures of how effective the Council was in enacting its Strategic Plan. An example was given that there were no measures for exhaust emissions or anything else which showed effects of any measures in pursuit of the Council’s strategic priority of addressing the climate emergency which had been declared at Full Council. Four issues were included that were somewhat related, but these were described by the Panel member as being independent and as measures that would be collected even if no climate emergency had been called. The Portfolio Holder agreed that the Council should measure its fleet emissions now, and compare this with future performance, once it had moved to a new fleet with lower emissions. The Environment and Sustainability Panel had shown that there were figures available regarding the Council’s energy use, and these could be considered.

A view came from a Panel member that the KPIs shown did not seem to be the right measures for measuring performance against the strategic priority of ‘Modern services for a modern city’. A wider view was given that the KPIs shown did not reflect what the Council did, and how successful it was being at providing services. The Portfolio Holder was asked if he could give any examples as to where the Council’s failure to meet a KPI had led to a change of approach. The Portfolio Holder agreed that there might need to be more work done to ensure that KPIs underpinned and drove the Council’s approach. The Strategic Director explained that data at service level was fed into how services were run and staffing levels set. The data was reviewed at the Heads of Service level and then by Senior Board. Senior Board was already investigating fly tipping, with an issue being the volume of rubbish bags being left next to public litter bins. The Portfolio Holder committed to bringing before the Panel at least two examples as to where KPI performance had led to changes in the Council’s approach, and that this would be done with the end-of-year KPI report.

A Panel member argued that the Council needed a plan as to how it would increase recycling rates, possibly by seeking help from ECC, even though improving this performance was difficult as not all relevant factors were within the Council’s control. The Portfolio Holder confirmed he had raised the issues regarding waste collection and recycling. As a Council, there might come a time when enforcement should be used to increase recycling rates. The question was how to encourage and educate people to recycle and then act to ensure and enforce that they did so. Some places fined residents who did not recycle recyclables. Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, noted that the Council now provided recycling of tetrapak containers and needed to look at next steps. More education was needed regarding what plastics could be recycled and the Council needed to ensure that it did not lose the ‘producer pays’ funds related to recycling. The Strategic Director pointed out that the ‘producer pays’ responsibility would be having an effect, as this would encourage producers to reduce the amount of recyclable packaging. A Panel member noted that a certain private provider of waste collection services achieved a recycling rate of 99% of recyclables, but at a much higher cost-per-tonne level than the Council. If the Council were to improve performance, it was argued that a new methodology would be needed, possibly including automatic separation of mingled waste and higher staffing levels. Whilst there would be significant cost implications, the Panel member argued that it would be good to get a view as to what was possible, should public opinion favour an increase in cost in order to improve performance.

The issue of social value in procurement was raised, with a request made of the Portfolio Holder for the Panel to be given figures as to the overall value of such social value, rather than just the number of contracts from which the Council derived any amount of social value. The Portfolio Holder informed the Panel that there had been an error in the report content, and a response to the Panel’s questions about social value in procurement would be circulated to Panel members.

A report was requested on the proposal for Colchester Amphora Trading to be appointed to work on the Holy Trinity Church project. It was requested that a Cabinet report on this be provided to the Scrutiny Panel as soon as possible, and that the decision may be brought for pre-decision scrutiny. Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, explained that detail was still being awaited, but that it would be useful for the public to see the plans and for scrutiny to ensure that the project was profitable and useful for Colchester.

A Panel member expressed surprise at the proposal for Colchester Amphora Trading to be involved in the Holy Trinity project, on the assumption that it had been thought better, in governance terms, that this was not run by a Council entity. Concern was raised that this would produce complications and costs relating to finance and taxation, with Amphora operating as a Teckal company, which meant that 80% or more of its business must be on the behalf of the Council, as its parent public authority. It was argued that there would be benefit from the Panel examining this decision in order to understand likely operating, taxation and governance issues, should Colchester Amphora Trading operate the project going forward. Scoping issues would allow an assessment as to whether this was the correct direction of travel for the Holy Trinity project.

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.