To enable the Committee to received and consider the outcome of the first round of public consultation and to agree proposals to go out for a second round of public consultation.

Members of the Committee were reminded of the approved terms of reference for the Community Governance Review of Clacton-on-Sea, Holland-on-Sea and Jaywick Sands and its implementation up until the point of the current meeting. Further to this, the Committee was advised of the outcome of the Phase I consultation exercise (Stage 2 in the Terms of Reference Timeline) as part of that Review (including the expenditure that had been incurred to date). Taking account of that outcome, the Committee had been invited to approve the basis of the Phase II consultation (Stage 4 in the Timeline) around the creation of separate Parishes for the three separate communities within the review area. In preparation for the Phase II consultation, information had been sought from by the Essex Association of Local Councils around the base costs of possible Local Councils for the three separate areas and the outcome of discussions with the Ward Councillors had shaped the proposed boundaries for three Parishes to then be consulted upon.

It was reported that the Community Governance Review (CGR) for Clacton-on-Sea, Holland-on-Sea, and Jaywick Sands had begun on 1 July 2025, as a consequence of the publication of the Terms of Reference for that Review.

By way of chronology around governance for the CGR, the following provided a timeline:

·        21 October 2024 – Motion at Full Council seeking a report setting out the process for undertaking a CGR in the review area.

·        15 November 2024 – Report to, and approval from, Full Council for the CGR to be undertaken based on draft Terms of Reference, designation of the Community Leadership Overview and Scrutiny Committee as the oversight Committee for the CHR and authorisation of the Chief Executive to update the Terms of Reference and publish these on 1 July 2025.

·        20 December 2024 – Approval of funding of £48K by Cabinet to meeting the anticipated costs of the CGR (subject to a review being undertaken to ensure this would be sufficient).

·        17 June 2025 – Report to and decision of the Community Leadership Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the proposed commencement of the CGR and reference to the Cabinet in respect of an increase in the budget for the CGR to £68K. The Committee also approved a date for its review of the outcome of the first stage of consultation and preparation for the next phase. This was originally scheduled for 20 October and was, subsequently, rearranged to 17 November 2025.

·        27 June 2025 – Decision of Cabinet to accept the revised budget for the CGR and authorise expenditure of up to £68K on the CGR.

·        1 July 2025 – Formal decision of the Chief Executive to publish the Terms of Reference for the CGR and thereby commence the review process.

The Committee heard that through the review to the Council could determine whether new parish or town councils should be created for those areas, which, collectively, were currently the only unparished parts of the District. Together, they included around 30,000 properties, 44,000 registered voters and many other stakeholders (including voluntary and community organisations) in the review.

Consultation & Engagement

It was reported that consultation and engagement with the general public and stakeholders had commenced on 1 July 2025. On this date the dedicated webpage had been launched on the Council’s website. This domain had offered detailed information on the consultation and had provided the approved Terms of Reference. The web page had also provided links to consultation surveys for each of the three areas and had provided details of public meetings to be held in each of the three areas covered by the review.

As part of the communications plan for the CGR, pull up banners had been produced providing a QR code specific to the area in which they had been placed. The QR code linked directly to the consultation pages and surveys. When the pull-up banners had been placed in the designated sites, there had also been leaflets and paper surveys about the CGR. In addition, each banner placement had a ballot box, with the intention of receiving completed consultation surveys. Those sites were:

·        Sunspot Jaywick, Brooklands, Jaywick

·        Holland-on-Sea Public Hall, Frinton Road, Holland-on-Sea

·        Pier Avenue Council Office, Pier Avenue, Clacton-on-Sea

·        Town Hall, Station Road, Clacton-on-Sea

Those locations had been checked on a weekly basis where submitted survey forms were collected and blank forms and leaflets replenished.

It was further reported that landscape banners advertising the CGR had been attached to railings in areas of high vehicular use in Holland-on-Sea, Clacton-on-Sea and Jaywick Sands. There had additionally been a banner displayed on the railings of the Town Hall in Clacton-on-Sea. Those banners held the same branding, CGR message and QR codes.

Members heard that press releases had been issued and a campaign on social media and local press began with regular advertising of the CGR emphasising the request for people to have their say. All communications had been branded to help reinforce recognition of the image and thus the consultation within communities. The media plan had continued through July, August and September with regular advertisements and pushes to maximise reach and responses.

Local shops and businesses in the review area had been approached to display leaflets and posters advertising the CGR and encouraging residents to have their say. Many premises had accepted the material and had displayed it during the Phase I consultation.

The Committee was informed that an email to 22,806 electors within the CGR area had been sent, which detailed the consultation, where to get further information and how to have their say. That had been followed by a letter to 30,000 households within the area. That contact followed the same basic format and content as the stakeholder communication.

As referenced in the CGR communications and web information on the CGR, four public meetings had been held during Phase I of the CGR consultation. Those meetings had been held as follows:

Timeline

It was reported that the Terms of Reference for this Community Governance Review had referenced an original timeline. The Stage 3 process (consideration of the Phase I consultation) had required more time than originally envisaged and, on that basis, the Committee had been invited (in the recommendations to report A.1) to agree to a revised timeline.

Financial Position

Members were informed that a budget of £68,000 had been allocated for the Community Governance Review. The costs incurred to date had been summarised below:

It was reported that on the basis that the phases of consultation had required the vast majority of costs to be incurred, and the Council had completed one of the two main phases of consultation, there had been good reason to believe that the costs of the review could be contained within the budget referred to. That had been dependent upon the second phase of the consultation mirroring the consultation and engagement approach from the first consultation, which had formed the basis of one of the recommendations to the Committee.

It was moved by Councillor Griffiths, seconded by Councillor Codling and RESOLVED that the Committee:

(a)   notes the content of the report in so much as it reminds it of the approved terms of reference for the Community Governance Review of Clacton-on-Sea, Holland-on-Sea and Jaywick Sands and its implementation to this point;

(b)   notes the outcome of the Phase I consultation exercise (Stage 2) in the Terms of Reference Timeline) as part of that Review (including the expenditure occurred to date), comparator information around the base costs of Local Councils for the three separate areas and the outcome of discussions with the Ward Councillors that has shaped the proposed boundaries for the three possible Parishes;

(c)   approves the basis of the Phase II consultation for the Review around the draft recommendations set out and involving the creation of separate Parishes for the three communities utilising the same engagement approach as adopted in the Phase I consultation;

(d)   notes that further information has been commissioned from Essex Association of Local Councils in respect of Councillor numbers on the three possible new Parish Councils and indicative base costs for such Parish Councils and, together with Council Tax base information for the three areas concerned, this case be advised to consultees in the Phase II consultation and the level of Council Tax at Band D this would equate to, to fund those base costs; and

(e)   approves the revised timeline for the remaining elements of the Review as follows: