243
Jo Hayes addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) about air quality in Colchester. She had been contacted in 2012 by a resident whose health had been harmed by air pollution, but had asked her to prevent harm to younger generations. She was seeking to raise awareness of the sources of air pollution, such as leaving car engines idling unnecessarily, and of the seriousness of the risk to health it posed. The town centre was an Air Quality Management Area and this behaviour only made the pollution worse. In 2013 Essex County Council Portfolio Holder had cancelled a scheme to reduce traffic in the town centre, which suggested he was unaware of the health risk posed by air pollution. The motion she had proposed to Council in 2015 for a clean air zone had been blocked by the Conservative group, again due to a lack of knowledge on the issue. Air quality was monitored and the data published, which showed the extent of the problem. Did the Portfolio Holder agree that a campaign to raise public awareness of the exhaust pollution issue would be beneficial?
Councillor Smith, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy thanked Jo for her work on this issue. The Portfolio Holder was committed to addressing this issue and was working with Essex County Council to obtain grants to ensure buses were fitted with green technology to reduce emissions.
Sir Bob Russell addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5). He noted the contents of the proposed Strategic Plan 2018-2021 in particular the Wellbeing priority to “Support those who need most help” and to “Target support to the most disadvantaged residents and communities”. He drew attention to the fact that there were 30,900 residents of retirement age in the borough. These were the generations that had been born during or after the Second World War and had known real adversity and austerity. Today’s society had been built through their efforts and the taxes they had paid. Some were very vulnerable. In this context, the Council should give a grant of £25,000 grant to Age Concern from its reserves in order to ensure the continuation of their valuable welfare rights service.
Councillor Smith, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked Sir Bob Russell for his comments. The administration had maintained its support for the voluntary sector. It was difficult to balance the needs of the many groups that requested support from the Council. He understood that Age Concern had previously used their own reserves to maintain this service and he thanked them for doing so.
Mark Goacher addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 6(5). The Green Party had been undertaking monitoring of air quality in Castle Ward. The results were alarming and demonstrated that pollution levels were above legal limits at a number of places, including the bottom of East Hill, on North Station Road and at the bottom of Mersea Road. These were dangerous levels of air pollution. He was not seeking to criticise Colchester Borough Council, who monitored air quality and he appreciated that members of all groups wanted to address the issue. However, more could be done to reduce emissions. For instance idling car engines was illegal and action should be taken to enforce this. Electric charging points should be provided in all car parks. The planting of grass and plants on walls also helped reduce pollution by up to 30% and this should trialled at an appropriate site, such as at the bottom of Mersea Road.
Councillor Lilley, Portfolio Holder for Public Safety and Licensing, responded and explained that he believed that radical action, such as pedestrianizing the High Street and the introduction of electric buses, was needed to tackle the issue. The Council was looking at setting aside some car parking spaces in its car parks for charging points, and he had discussed with a taxi firm the possibility of their taxi drivers using electric vehicles and how this could be incentivised.
Mr Orton addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 6(5) about the condition of the town centre. Members of the public did not understand the divisions of responsibility between Essex County Council and Colchester Borough Council and were of the view that the problems in the town centre were for the Council to deal with. They just wanted to see someone take responsibility and action taken to address some of the issues in the town centre. Nothing was being done to tackle issues such as dirty lifts, the traffic lights in Osborne Street not working and the condition of the underpass.
Councillor Lilley. Portfolio Holder for Public Safety and Licensing, explained that he discussed these issues regularly with Mr Orton. He had also recently met with officers from Essex County Council and would be drawing up an action plan to improve the pavements and the street furniture in Colchester town centre.
Isobel Merry addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 6(5). Gosbecks Archaeological Park was a site of major historical importance, but it was underutilised and needed to be promoted more. Whilst it was appreciated that resources were tight, more could be made of Colchester’s Roman history. It was often hard for visitors to access Colchester’s Roman sites and to appreciate their significance. A more joined up approach needed to be taken to Colchester’s history. This would increase visitor numbers and boost Colchester’s economy.
Councillor Bourne, Portfolio Holder for Housing and Communities, agreed that Colchester’s Roman history was very important. Gosbecks Archaeological Park was a stunning site, and she was looking at opportunities for the site. She anticipated that she would report on the issue later this year. Councillor T. Young, Portfolio Holder for Business and Culture, stressed that tourism was very important and the administration continued to invest to support it.
Emmanuel Blondell addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 6(5) about universal credit. He was part of group of concerned Colcestrians who had recently been speaking to residents about universal credit. Some of the concerns and issues that had been raised with them included the five week period after claiming in which no payment would be made, and how claimants could obtain an advance payment. There were also concerns that it could result in tenants being made homeless. There was a lack of information about how it would work alongside other benefits, and how claimants could protect themselves.
Dr Nicholas Blondell addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 6(5). He was a general practitioner who had been working in Colchester for the past three years. He was concerned by the number of patients he saw who were presenting because their mental and physical health was being affected through not being able to pay for essentials such as rent and food. Thousands of people in Colchester were worried that they wold not be able to pay rent once universal credit was introduced. The Council should guarantee that no one be made homeless as a result of universal credit.
Victoria Weaver addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 6(5). Experience elsewhere had shown that claimants elsewhere had had to wait unacceptably long times in order for universal credit payments to be made, or had been mistakenly removed from the system. They has spoken to many residents about Universal credit and there was considerable anxiety about its introduction. Other Councils were diverting funds to help claimants. She queried how much funding the Council was putting into the transition scheme, and asked whether the scheme would ensure that there were no evictions as a result of arrears. In addition there was concern that there no work coaches, who were important in advising people on Universal credit, in Colchester. In their absence then the Council should be proactive in informing people, and do all it could to protect the homeless and those threatened with homelessness.
Jasmin Stone addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 6(5). She was on Universal credit and it was a difficult experience. She had previously lived in Croydon, and her work coach was still in Croydon, which made complying with some of the procedures difficult. Support needed to be put in place for those being transferred onto universal credit. Studies had shown a significant rise in the use of foodbanks in areas where universal credit was rolled out. The roll out of universal credit was causing significant social issues, such as rises in physical and mental health issues, and increases in borrowing and debt. It was essential that a safety net be put in place for those affected.
Camille Barbagallo addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 6(5). Universal credit was casing a social crisis. It was deeply concerning that in such a prosperous country that hundreds of thousands of people were turning to foodbanks, and that diseases such as rickets were being seen. The Council had a responsibility to ensure that people were supported and consideration needed to be given to what the Council could do to alleviate this social crisis.
Councillor Bourne, Portfolio Holder for Housing and Communities, responded to the speakers on universal credit. It was incorrect to portray the Council as uncaring. Councillors across the political spectrum were very concerned with ensuring the welfare of Colchester residents. The Council had an experienced team, used to dealing with changes to welfare provision. It worked with partners in the clinical commissioning group, Essex County Council, housing associations and the voluntary sector in order to help its residents. In December, Council had unanimously agreed a motion on universal credit which set out how the Council would respond to the introduction of universal credit. Full service had been delayed until July 2018 which gave a longer period to prepare, and a number of changes to universal credit had been agreed in December. Full service only affected new claimants, and it would be counterproductive to be too alarmist as this would only cause unnecessary anxiety. A proper implementation plan would be prepared together with partners and building on the experience of previous welfare reforms and other authorities where it had already been introduced. Whilst the administration did not support universal credit, it had an excellent relationship with the Department of Work and Pensions. The Council would ensure Councillors were trained to help residents on universal credit and refer them to the appropriate sources of help. If other groups were speaking to residents they had an obligation to ensure they had the necessary expertise, and were aware of the support that was available.
Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, explained tht £300,000 had been invested in the Welfare Team to ensure that the Council was prepared for the welfare reforms that were being proposed. The Council had received a grant from the Department of Work and Pensions which was being used to create two new posts who would help those on universal credit to find work.