308
Mr Orton addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) to express his concern that members of the public were only allowed to address Council for a maximum of three minutes. He considered that this did not deliver on freedom of speech, for which future generations had fought, and that it should be reviewed
Councillor Cory. Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that the Have Your Say! Arrangements had recently been extended to allow an additional minute for speakers to respond to any reply they were given. He would consider whether to refer the matter to the Governance and Audit Committee, Policy and Public Initiatives Panel or the Member Development Group.
John Franklin addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) on the future development of Colchester. He argued that there was a lack of vision and there was a need for better infrastructure. Colchester needed to plan for the next 200 years, rather than the next 30. Colchester Borough Council, Essex County Council and the government needed to work together to plan vertical living zones with reliable public transport and employment opportunities. This would provide integrated and sustainable communities. Northern Gateway offered an opportunity to develop the first vertical living zone.
Councillor T. Young thanked Mr Franklin. His suggestions were more relevant to the Local Plan Committee and he would provide details of his proposals to the relevant officers. However, Garden Communities provided some of the elements suggested by Mr Franklin.
Angel Kalyan addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) to ask whether the Council still claimed that an investigation was undertaken into the claims that she made, in the light of apparently conflicting statements on the issue.
The Mayor invited Adrian Pritchard, Chief Executive, to respond. He stressed that he was not prepared to commit any more Council resources to her inquiries and complaints. He had invited Mrs Kalyan to take the Council to court over the issues she raised where it would defend its case.
Alan Short addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) to enquire about the arrangements for scrutiny at Colchester Borough Council. He had raised issues relating to the Painters Yard planning application at Governance and Audit Committee, particularly in respect of the proposed lease of the site, but had been informed that these issues did not fall within their remit. He sought clarification about the appropriate body that would be able to address these concerns.
Councillor Davies, Chair of the Scrutiny Panel, explained that he would be welcome to attend meetings of the Scrutiny Panel. She explained the remit of the Panel but stressed that the issues he had raised were for the Cabinet. Councillor Fox, Chair of the Governance and Audit Committee, invited Mr Short to attend the next meeting of the Governance and Audit Committee when it would be looking at the Council’s commercial companies as the Council’s shareholder Committee.
Giles Coode-Adams addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure 6(5) on behalf of CAUSE to express their opposition to the allocation of £450,000 towards Garden Communities, which he considered to be a waste of public money. North Essex Garden Communities Ltd would not deliver any housing for many years. It owned no land and neither did it have the finance to deliver any housing. He supported the proposed alteration to the budget. The Council needed to see proper financial viability statements before committing any finance and the funding would be better used on proper planning for affordable housing for local people.
Councillor T. Young, Portfolio Holder for Business and Culture, expressed his hope that Council would support the alteration to the budget. There was cross party and multi authority support for Garden Communities principles and it was for the Local Plan Committee to continue to work on the details.
Tom Foster, Chair of CAUSE, addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5), about concerns about potential conflicts of interest arising from the Council’s investment in North Essex Garden Communities Ltd. It would be increasingly difficult for the Council to demonstrate it was an even-handed regulator when it was so committed to Garden Communities. Directors on NEGC Ltd would have a legal duty to act in the best interests of the company rather than in the Council’s interests. CAUSE had done a survey, which had shown that most members of the public perceived that there was a conflict of interest, and the Council’s should ensure that those who were directors of NEGC Ltd. should take no part in Council decisions on investment in the company. CAUSE supported the proposed alteration to the budget.
Councillor T. Young, Portfolio Holder for Business and Culture, explained that the Monitoring Officer had written to CAUSE with advice on the position of those Councillors who were also Directors of NEGC Ltd. As long as the appropriate interest was declared, they were entitled to vote on matters relating to NEGC Ltd.
Sebastian Thornton addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5 to seek advice about the resolution of an issue with Colchester Police and the Independent Office of Police Conduct.
Councillor Lilley, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Community Safety and Licensing, indicated that if the full details were provided to him by Mr Thornton, he would pass them on to the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for Essex.
Alistair Heron addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) about the Broad Lane Sports Ground. It was being held in charitable trust on a 99 year lease for the benefit of the people of Wivenhoe. He understood that the Council was seeking to persuade trustees, who had a duty to protect their asset, to give up the lease. His concerns had been exacerbated following conversations with the Trustees, and he understood that contrary to previous claims, the Trustees had not been asked to take their own legal advice on whether they could lawfully give up the asset. He suggested that the Council should concentrate on the other potential sites it had identified to secure funding from the Football Association.
Councillor Cory, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, reiterated his offer to meet with Mr Heron to discuss these issues. He stressed that he was seeking to protect the site for sporting use indefinitely and highlighted that the site was allocated for sports use in the Local Plan. The Council was looking to secure investment for the site and to introduce a new form of governance. The Chair of Trustees had been advised to take legal advice.
Sir Bob Russell addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) to provide some historical perspective over the use of the term “city” in relation to Colchester in advance of the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 22 February 2019. He congratulated the Heritage and Tourism Task and Finish Group for suggesting the use of the word “city” in the branding, and the Cabinet and Councillor Gerard Oxford for taking it forward. The Council had applied for city status on four occasions since 1992 so the revised strapline was in line with Council policy, and Destination Colchester had been using it for several years.
Councillor T. Young, Portfolio Holder for Business and Culture, thanked Sir Bob Russell for his comments. He was looking forward to these issues being the subject of a full public debate at the Scrutiny Panel on 22 February 2019.
Paul Frost addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) on behalf of Hands Off Wivenhoe. He had spoken at Local Plan Committee to query the budget of NEGC Ltd and what it would be spent on, but he had not received a response. He noted that the Business Plan for NEGC Ltd had not yet been published despite claims that it would be in place by the end of January 2019.
Councillor T. Young, Portfolio Holder for Business and Culture, thanked Mr Frost for his comments. The Council would continue to listen to community groups on the Local Plan. The Business Plan for NEGC Ltd was not yet agreed but a public version would be made available when the Business Plan was published. Councillor G. Oxford, Chair of the Local Plan Committee, indicated that a full response had been provided by officers at the Local Plan Committee meeting.
Paul Griffith, addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5), the Committee on Standards of Public Life had published its report on Ethical Standards in Local Government. This had made 26 recommendations. The fourth recommendation was for an objective test on the circumstances in which Councillors should withdraw and not vote. He asked Council to reflect on this recommendation and incorporate it into the Council’s Constitution.
The Monitoring Officer, Andrew Weavers, was invited to respond to Mr Griffith. He explained that the Committee on Standards of Public Life had submitted its report to Parliament. Many of the recommendations, including that highlighted by Mr Griffith, required a change in law. The Council was not in a position to introduce this change itself. Once legislation was introduced and approved, the Council would amend its Code of Conduct. Under the existing arrangements all the Councillors appointed as Directors of NEGC Ltd were declaring the interests that were legally required.
Philip Parker addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(5) about issues relating to domestic abuse against men. He had suffered domestic abuse whilst under the care of Essex County Council. He highlighted the impact that this had on victims. He believed there was a lack of support for male victims of domestic abuse and asked what the Council was doing to protect male victims.
Councillor Bourne, Portfolio Holder for Housing and Communities, responded and explained that the Council could not respond on the issues relating to Essex County Council. The Council took its duties to all groups with protected characteristics seriously. It provided funding towards Colchester and Tendring Women’s Refuge, which ran the “Freedom” course for victims of any gender. The Council also provided considerable support for rough sleepers.