1044
Robbie Spence addressed the Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to express his concern about the “one size fits all” approach in the new waste and recycling service. Each household was being given the same capacity, irrespective of size. Braintree Council were planning to give residents a choice of two different sizes. Why were residents in Colchester not given a choice of bin sizes and when local government reorganisation took place, would residents of Colchester then be provided with a similar service to that being offered by Braintree? Would it be possible to provide residents with the option of 140 litre bins that were currently offered though the garden waste recycling scheme for other waste and recycling streams. What would happen to the green recycling boxes, which would no longer be used?
Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure, explained that Colchester, Tendring and Braintree all operated different collection systems, and it would take a significant period after local government reorganisation for the services to be fully integrated. Whilst the aim of the new service would be to provide a uniform service, there would be some flexibility. As part of the rollout, officers were assessing every street and where wheeled bins were not practical alternative options would be offered. As part of the current trial, residents were being given the opportunity to get used to the new size, but consideration would be given to feedback from residents and where appropriate larger bins could be provided. The outcome of the trial would inform the major rollout. However, consideration needed to be given to the overall budget so a degree of uniformity was needed. Residents could retain the green recycling bins for their own use.
Sie Bob Russell addressed the Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) and congratulated the Leader of the Council on his appointment and thanked him for his decision to halt the sale of Cymbeline Meadows Nature Reserve. However it was important to know when the decision to sell this asset had been taken and by whom. It was hoped that the administration would operate in a more open and transparent manner. The list of assets considered for sale should be disclosed.
Councillor Dundas, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that the Council had a number of non-strategic assets on which it was getting a poor return on investment and it was seeking to improve the return it made to help support the council’s budget. However, Cymbeline Farm was a strategic asset. The decision had been taken by the Assets Oversight Group. The Council was getting a poor return on Cymbeline Farm and options would continue to be explored to look at how this could be improved, possibly through some of the brownfield elements of the site. Public access to the site also needed to be improved. In future the Local Government Reorganisation Transition Oversight Panel would examine issues relating to assets which would enable greater public scrutiny and involvement.
Councillor King, Portfolio Holder for Local Government Reorganisation, Communities and Public Protection, explained that he took responsibility for the poor communication on this issue under the previous administration and stressed that he supported the decision to withdraw the site from sale.
Jove Larenty addressed the Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) about King Edwards Quay. When he at arrived at the Quay 5 years ago the area had suffered from anti-social behavior, but over time through the efforts of the residential boat community, working with the police and the Council, the area had been transformed. The Council had then decided to increase residential mooring fees by 500%, following an unsatisfactory analysis of other marinas, which were not directly comparable. It was understood that the rising costs included the recovery of sunken boats previously occupied by squatters, which was unfair. The Council should look again at the facilities that were provided and readjust the mooring fees to a more appropriate level.
Councillor Sunnucks, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Assets, responded and explained that the decision of the previous administration would be maintained. The ground rent was comparable to equivalent sites. However the real problem appeared to be the environment and this could be addressed through an improved relationship with the Council. The Council could use its convening powers to address some of the issues that had been highlighted and build on the residents’ vision of what the Quay could be.
Cariina Cooper addressed the Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to raise issues about 5G and the report the Council commissioned from Intelligens Consulting. Issues about the commissioning of this report had been raised at the Scrutiny Panel and it was not clear who was responsible for commissioning the report or how the objectivity of the firm commissioned had been assessed. Concern was also expressed about the Council’s approach to the assessment of potential harm caused by 5G. The implementation of 5G based on a flawed report was a failure of corporate governance. Clarification was sought as to whether the Council had any future projects in which it would profit from 5G infrastructure.
Councillor King, Portfolio Holder for Local Government Reorganisation, Communities and Public Protection, explained that the Council’s approach was to rely on evidence available nationally and internationally, and to conform to national policies, which were very clear on 5G safety. The intention of the report that was commissioned was to provide some reassurance to the public on these issues, although it was appreciated she did not agree with its conclusions. The Council’s role in this issue was very small. He would ask officers to review her contribution and see if there was anything further that could be usefully added to previous correspondence.
Councillor Dundas, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy. indicated a written response would be sent on the issue raised about the commissioning of the Intelligens report. There were no forthcoming projects from which the Council would profit from 5G infrastructure.
Caroline White addressed the Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1). The Strategic Biodiversity Assessment stated there was a presumption that local wildlife sites would be protected through the planning system and recognised that many sites were vulnerable to development pressure, inappropriate management and neglect. The halting of the sale of Cymbeline Meadows was welcomed but there was a contrast between the Council’s stated biodiversity ambitions and recent decisions on sites identified in the Council’s Biodiversity Duty report, particularly in respect of Cymbeline Meadows and Stanway Country Park. How did Cabinet reconcile the biodiversity enhancement commitments for Cymbeline Meadows and Stanway Country Park set out in the approved biodiversity report with decisions that appeared to reduce the likelihood of these enhancements being delivered?
Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Sustainable Development responded and stressed that the intention behind the commitments in the Biodiversity Duty report remained unchanged. In terms of Cymbeline Farm, the Council wanted to invest and improve the site but there was no identified funding available, and the sale had been withdrawn. Any proposals would need to meet biodiversity obligations. The proposal consulted on at Stanway Country Park was for a small scale family run facility. An ecological survey would be undertaken, but the proposed site had a very poor biodiversity value.
Councillor Dundas, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, indicated that he understood that the site was likely to be of poor quality as the Lakelands Centre had been built on contaminated land. Stanway Country Park was owned by Essex County Council and the Council had limited involvement in its management and development.
Rachel Matthews addressed the Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1). A number of authorities, including Essex County Council, had scrapped or paused their Climate Emergency Declarations and net zero strategies. Big institutional investors were also withdrawing investment from net zero. There was also a policy contradiction with government fast tracking planning for data centres, despite their need for large amounts of energy and water, and pollution from emissions. Considerable investment had been made in cycle and bus lanes whilst simultaneously accelerating highly polluting infrastructure. In the light of emerging national practice, fiscal pressure and delivery constraints, would the Council review the climate emergency declaration and prove whether it remains justified, proportionate and fit for purpose.
Councillor Dundas, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that this had been discussed at the Scrutiny Panel and the Council took a pragmatic approach to what it did in respect of net zero, assessing costs and benefits. A similar approach was taken to environment issues in general. The Climate Emergency would be kept under review and if residents identified unnecessary net zero initiatives, he would review them.
Councillor Pearson attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet about investment in Berechurch ward. Information was sought on how investment and resources had been invested in Berechurch over the last 15 years, how much had been raised from section 106 in that period and how much money had been spent on what was the second most deprived ward in the city. Apart from a small investment in a play area he was not aware of any other investment over the past twelve years. It was essential that the administration took account of the needs of Berechurch when considering the Strategic Plan and addressing health and wellbeing across Colchester. In other parts of Colchester the Council had taken the lead in providing investment.
Councillor Sunnucks, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Assets, responded that it would be a considerable effort to quantify all the section 106 contributions over that timescale. Benefits would also result from schemes outside the ward, particularly in respect of transport. Ward councillors should also push for improvements, for example to the road connections in south Colchester. It would be more sensible to take a more forward looking approach.
Councillor King, Portfolio Holder for Local Government Reorganisation, Communities and Public Protection, highlighted that there had been two specific bid programmes for ward members on play parks and community facilities so there had been opportunities to seek investment. No bid had been received in respect of community facilities. If there were now schemes that could be put for these programmes these could perhaps be looked at. A forward looking response would be more helpful than looking at what had previously been provided.
A statement from Councillor Cufoglu was read to the Cabinet by the Democratic Services Manager. This set out the benefits of joint patrols by city centre wardens and youth workers. He had allocated £850 to help support these patrols which helped reduce anti-social behaviour and helped wardens and youth workers better understand the needs of youth groups. As a consequence, adjustments could be made to activities offered by Essex Youth Service. Cabinet were asked to support this initiative by increasing the funding to £1578, which would enable the Essex Youth Service to deliver consistent, weekly detached youth work alongside city centre wardens, effectively covering the remaining school holiday months.
Councillor King, Portfolio Holder for Local Government Reorganisation, Communities and Public Protection, responded that the preventative nature of this work fitted with the approach of the Council’s communities teams. It could also potentially be funded through Police and Crime Commissioner funding. He look to take this forward with Councillor Cufoglu so there was better engagement with young people.
Councillor Scordis attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet. He offered his congratulations to the new administration and he hoped to enjoy a constructive relationship with Cabinet. Cabinet should look to address the following issues as a priority:-
• The boating lake in Castle Park, which looked very unattractive in its current state. It was understood options to improve it were being looked at but this needed to be prioritised so a solution could be put in place for the summer break.
• Street drinkers needed to be addressed through enforcement of the Public Space Protection Order. The behaviour could be intimidating to residents.
• The ban on cars driving down the High Street needed to be enforced to make the city centre more attractive and safer for residents.
Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure, explained that the report on options for the boating lake would be received soon, and public consultation would follow. The solution would need to be affordable and sustainable. Councillor King, Portfolio Holder for Local Government Reorganisation, Communities and Public Protection, responded that a strong approach would be taken to street drinkers and enforcement action taken. It was the Council’s first duty to keep the streets safe for residents. Councillor Dundas, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that the issues of car use on the High Street would be raised with Essex County Council at meetings later this week.
Cheryl Taylor addressed the Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to stress the importance of listening in projects such as Heart of Greenstead. Communities were full of people with skills and potential to address the issues they faced. To achieve community led change, the Council needed to listen before taking decisions. Therefore a space needed to be created for conversations to take place where local people could share ideas: a network of community wellbeing practitioners needed to be created. These could be people with practical skills and a willingness to help. This would lead to solutions that were truly community led.
Councillor Dundas, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that Heart of Greenstead was a long running project and that it had involved extensive community consultation and engagement, including a board with community representation. Councillor Jay, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth, Transformation and Digital, highlighted the work of the Residents Panel which gave residents the opportunity to engage and suggest ideas. Listening was a key part of the councillor role.
Councillor Warnes attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet. Where there were areas of significant deprivation, there was a responsibility on the Council to take a lead in addressing this centrally as well as on ward councillors.
Taking into account the Strategic Plan Priority Outcomes for the period 2025/2027 under health, happiness and well-being around tackling the causes of inequality and supporting the most vulnerable residents by integrating aligning/empowering communities, a listing of the projects undertaking in the plan period and their economic and social value be should be provided that showed the top five social deprived wards in the Colchester.
Councillor King, Portfolio Holder for Local Government Reorganisation, Communities and Public Protection, explained that the Council did have a responsibility to actively look and listen, and he believed that previous administrations had done that as far as resources allowed. It was a two-way process as community leaders also needed to shape and influence decisions. A written response would be sent to the question but the new administration would continue to address issues of deprivation as even handedly as it could.
Councillor Warnes responded that he was pleased it was a two-way process was accepted and believed the Council needed to be inquisitive when dealing with ingrained deprivation. He asked what were Cabinet planning to review in terms of support and intervention in the ten areas of deprivation within the city area.
Councillor King reiterated that the administration remained committed to tackling deprivation and would respond in writing.