The report reminds the Committee 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.  The Committee is also advised of the outcome of the Phase II consultation exercise (Stage 4 in the Terms of Reference Timeline) as part of that Review (including the expenditure incurred to date). 

 

The report builds on that presented to the Committee on 17 November 2025 with the outcome of the Phase I consultation exercise.  That exercise revealed that 74% of elector respondents across the review area thought it was wrong that the whole area was still unparished.  There was over a 7% response rate from electors across the review area.  Stakeholder respondents likewise thought it was wrong that the area was unparished.  The option for parishing the area that gained the most support (44% of elector responses) was three separate parish councils for the three separate communities.  In Jaywick Sands and in Holland-on-Sea over 50% of elector responses were in favour of separate parish councils. 

 

This report, through its appendices, sets out the views of respondents on the basic principle of establishing parish councils and then on what the arrangements for those councils could/should be. 

 

Taking account of the two Phases of consultation, the Committee is invited to approve its final recommendations to Council around the creation of separate Parishes, for the three communities referred to, with effect from 1 April 2027.  A series of further final recommendations from the review are then set out to meet the requirements of Part 4 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”) for such reviews.  Proposed steps up to the elections to the possible three Parish Councils, in May 2027, are then provided to the Committee to consider.

The Committee was reminded of the approved terms of reference for the Community Governance Review (CGR) of Clacton?on?Sea, Holland?on?Sea and Jaywick Sands, together with the progress made in its implementation to date. Members were also advised of the outcome of the Phase II consultation exercise (Stage 4 of the Terms of Reference Timeline), including the expenditure incurred.

 

The report (A.2) built on that presented to the Committee on 17 November 2025, which had outlined the results of the Phase I consultation. That earlier consultation had shown that 74% of elector respondents across the review area considered it wrong that the whole area remained unparished. The response rate from electors had exceeded 7%. Stakeholder respondents had similarly expressed the view that the area should not remain unparished. The option receiving the highest level of support (44% of elector responses) was the creation of three separate parish councils for the three distinct communities. In both Jaywick Sands and Holland?on?Sea, over 50% of elector responses had supported separate parish councils.

 

The report (A.2), through its appendices, set out respondents’ views on the principle of establishing parish councils and on the potential arrangements for those councils.

 

Having considered the findings from both consultation phases, the Committee was invited to approve its final recommendations to Council for the creation of separate parishes for the three communities, to take effect from 1 April 2027. A series of further final recommendations was presented to meet the requirements of Part 4 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. Proposed steps leading up to the potential elections for the three parish councils in May 2027 were also provided for the Committee’s consideration.

 

The Committee was informed that the CGR for Clacton?on?Sea, Holland?on?Sea and Jaywick Sands had commenced on 1 July 2025 following the publication of the Terms of Reference.

 

For context, the chronology of the governance process for the CGR was reported as follows:

 

•                  21 October 2024 – A motion was submitted to Full Council requesting a report outlining the process for undertaking a CGR in the review area.

•                  15 November 2024 – Full Council received and approved a report proposing that a CGR be undertaken based on draft Terms of Reference. The Community Leadership Overview and Scrutiny Committee was designated as the oversight body for the Review, and the Chief Executive was authorised to update and publish the Terms of Reference on 1 July 2025.

•                  20 December 2024 – Cabinet approved funding of £48,000 to meet anticipated CGR costs, subject to a review of sufficiency.

•                  17 June 2025 – The Community Leadership Overview & Scrutiny Committee received a report on the proposed commencement of the CGR and agreed to refer a request to Cabinet for an increased budget of £68,000. The Committee also approved a date for reviewing the outcome of the first consultation stage and preparing for the next phase. This meeting was initially scheduled for 20 October but was later rearranged to 17 November 2025.

•                  27 June 2025 – Cabinet accepted the revised CGR budget and authorised expenditure up to £68,000.

•                  1 July 2025 – The Chief Executive formally published the Terms of Reference, thereby initiating the Review.

•                  1 July – 30 September 2025 – Phase I consultation was undertaken to gather views on whether parishing was appropriate and whether any new governance arrangements should involve one, two or three parishes.

•                  17 November 2025 – The Committee received the outcome of the Phase I consultation and approved draft recommendations proposing separate parishes for the three communities. The Committee also agreed to commence consultation on those recommendations.

 

It was reported that the purpose of the Review was to determine whether new parish or town councils should be created for the three areas, which remained the only unparished parts of the District. Collectively, the review area comprised approximately 30,000 properties, 44,000 registered voters and a wide range of stakeholders, including voluntary and community organisations.

 

Phase II Consultation – Basis Approved by the Community Leadership Overview and Scrutiny Committee

 

(1) Parishing of the Review Area

The Committee noted that, as the Phase I consultation had demonstrated support for parishing the area covered by the Community Governance Review, the Phase II consultation had proceeded on the basis of a draft recommendation that parishing should be implemented. Phase II therefore had sought views on the available options for parishing arrangements.

 

(2) Areas/Boundaries – Identities and Interests of Communities

It was reported that the option receiving the highest level of support during Phase I had been the creation of three separate local councils for Clacton?on?Sea, Holland?on?Sea and Jaywick Sands. This option had been therefore adopted as a draft recommendation for Phase II. As a result, the consultation had been structured to include separate elements for each of the three areas, enabling the Review to address statutory requirements relating to community identity, interests and effective governance.

 

The Committee was advised that the consultation materials had been set out appropriately for each of the three communities. To support this process, discussions had taken place with the Ward Councillors for the West Clacton & Jaywick Sands, St Bartholomew’s and Eastcliff Wards. Those discussions had been intended to ensure that any proposed parish arrangements accurately reflected the communities understood to constitute ‘Jaywick Sands’ and ‘Holland?on?Sea’. The meetings had included consideration of proposed boundaries that would have resulted in more narrowly defined parish areas for Jaywick Sands and Holland?on?Sea. The proposals presented in the report (A.2) for those potential parishes (and, by consequence, for a potential Clacton?on?Sea Parish) reflected the direction sought by the Ward Councillors involved.

 

The Committee was reminded that Section 93 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 required the Council, when conducting a Community Governance Review, to secure future arrangements that reflected the identities and interests of local communities. The legislation also required that such arrangements be convenient, effective, supportive of community cohesion and mindful of existing representational structures. Those considerations had been central to the discussions held with Ward Councillors.

 

Arising from this work, the draft recommendations for parishing in the three areas utilised the boundaries as set out in Appendices F–H of the A.2 report.

 

(3) Naming of Possible New Parishes and Parish Councils (and Council Style)

The Committee was advised that the draft recommendations had included proposed names for the possible new parishes as follows:

 

• West Clacton and Jaywick Sands
• Clacton?on?Sea
• Holland?on?Sea

 

Those names corresponded with the maps presented at Appendices F–H to the A.2 report.

 

It was reported that, in each of the three cases, the electorate of the proposed parish would exceed 1,000. In accordance with Section 94 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, the Council was therefore required to recommend the establishment of a parish council for each area, with no discretion available due to the electorate size.

 

The Committee acknowledged that the Review was also able to consider the style of any parish councils to be constituted. Following the discussions with Ward Councillors referred to earlier, draft recommendations had been approved on the basis of the following styles:

 

• West Clacton and Jaywick Sands Town Council
• Clacton?on?Sea Town Council
• Holland?on?Sea Village Council

 

It was confirmed that the use of the terms “Town Council” and “Village Council” did not alter the legal status of those bodies, which would remain parish councils in terms of their powers and responsibilities. Electors and stakeholders in all three areas had been presented during Phase II consultation with the full range of available parish council style options.

 

(4) Electoral Arrangements

The Committee was informed that the legal minimum number of parish councillors for any parish council was five, as set out in Section 16 of the Local Government Act 1972, and that there was no statutory maximum. It was noted that the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) had issued guidance in 1988 suggesting that five councillors were too few for effective administration, recommending instead a practical minimum of seven and a maximum of twenty?five.

 

In addition to the NALC guidance, the Committee had received specific advice from the Essex Association of Local Councils (EALC) regarding the appropriate number of parish councillors for each of the possible new parish councils. The following information was presented:

 

Possible Parish Council for			Electorate 2025-26	Electorate Projection 2029-30	NALC guidance on Parish Councillor Numbers	EALC guidance on Parish Councillor Numbers
West Clacton & Jaywick Sands			4,227	4,417	12	12-14
Clacton-on-Sea			32,9061	33,943	25	21-24
Holland-on-Sea			6,8551	7,098	15	12-14

Earlier assessments had suggested an electorate of 6,713 for the proposed Holland?on?Sea Parish and 33,048 for Clacton?on?Sea. A further reassessment had produced the updated figures shown, with suitable adjustments applied to the electorate projections based on the District Ward?level data included in the Terms of Reference.

 

The Committee noted that the Phase II draft recommendations had utilised the NALC guidance, while electors and stakeholders had also been directed to the EALC guidance. The consultation had sought views on the ranges presented.

 

It was reported that the five?year electorate projections from 2025 had been included in the Terms of Reference published on 1 July 2025.

 

A further draft recommendation in Phase II had proposed that elections to the parish councils for the possible West Clacton and Jaywick Sands Parish and the possible Holland?on?Sea Parish should be whole?council elections, with both parishes being unwarded. However, for the possible Clacton?on?Sea Town Council, the size and distribution of the electorate made a single unwarded election impracticable. It was also considered desirable that distinct parts of the area should have specific representation. Accordingly, the draft recommendations had sought views on warding arrangements for Clacton?on?Sea.

 

The Committee noted that Appendix H to the report (A.2) had contained a map of the draft parish ward proposals for a possible Clacton?on?Sea Parish. As the proposed parish wards were based on existing District Ward boundaries and names, the areas were considered easily identifiable and unlikely to disrupt local ties. It was acknowledged that the proposed boundary between the Clacton?on?Sea and Holland?on?Sea Parishes would run through the Eastcliff Ward, requiring an adjustment to the warding arrangements. It was therefore proposed that the St Paul’s District Ward be combined with the part of Eastcliff District Ward falling within the proposed Clacton?on?Sea Parish to form a new St Paul’s and Eastcliff Parish Ward. The five?year electorate forecasts for those wards, as set out in the Terms of Reference, had been taken into account in preparing the proposals.

 

It was confirmed that none of the above proposals sought to make any changes to the District Ward boundaries for Tendring District Council.

 

The Committee acknowledged the numbers of parish councillors proposed in the draft recommendations for each of the Clacton?on?Sea Parish Wards. Those numbers were based on the NALC guidance indicating a total of 25 parish councillors for the possible Clacton?on?Sea Parish:

 

	Electorate 2025-26	Electorate 2029-30 (forecast)	Proposed number of Parish Councillors	Electorate Ratio (2025-26)
Bluehouse Ward	4,059	4,105	3	1:1,353
Burrsville Ward	4,803	5,199	4	1:1,200
Cann Hall Ward	4,634	4,989	3	1:1,545
Coppins Ward	5,156	5,245	4	1:1,282
Pier Ward	1,928	2,065	1	1:1,928
St James’ Ward	4,872	4,886	4	1:1,218
St John’s Ward	4,965	4,965	4	1:1,241
St Paul’s & Eastcliff Ward	2,568	2,568	2	1:1,284

 

The Committee was advised that the reference to Eastcliff related to the part of the current District Ward of Eastcliff that would not form part of the possible Holland?on?Sea Parish, comprising 339 electors. Earlier apportionment had suggested that 442 electors would fall within this part of Eastcliff Ward, resulting in a previously identified higher total of 2,671 electors for the proposed Parish Ward and an electoral ratio of 1:1,336.

 

The Committee noted that the overall electoral ratio in the table was 1 parish councillor to 1,306 electors (2025–26).

 

It was further reported that, in view of Local Government Reorganisation in Greater Essex, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England was expected to undertake an electoral review of the relevant Unitary Area, which would include the current District of Tendring. Any adjustments to parish wards arising from that review would follow the determination of the new Unitary Authority electoral boundaries. Such changes would apply electoral proportionality rules to parish wards as required.

 

(5) Precepts and Base Costs

The Committee was reminded that the public meetings held during Phase I of the consultation had included reference to Special Expenses. In 2025/26, the Council had allocated £682,999 as Special Expenses, of which £423,446 had been charged to Council Taxpayers in Clacton?on?Sea, Holland?on?Sea and Jaywick Sands. It was noted that, should parishing proceed, a reassessment of the total charge and its allocation would be required following the conclusion of the CGR.  Those Special Expenses related to open space, playground and recreation costs incurred within the review area.

 

The Committee was informed that, should the Council adopt the final recommendations, it would be responsible for determining the initial precepts for the new parish councils. It was also noted that any allotments owned by the District Council within the review area would automatically transfer to the relevant new parish council. The only allotments affected by the Review were those at Rush Green, Clacton-on-Sea.

 

To support the Phase II consultation, the EALC had provided professional advice on the likely base costs of the possible parish councils. Those cost estimates were set out at Appendix E to the report (A.2) and had been referenced throughout the Phase II consultation materials.

 

As part of the Phase II consultation, consultees had also been invited to indicate any services, activities, events or arrangements that they wished a possible new parish council to be responsible for. This information was intended to inform any future consideration of responsibilities beyond the base operating costs of a parish council, should the establishment of such councils be approved.

 

Outcome from the Phase II Consultation

The Committee noted that the findings from the Phase II consultation were set out in Appendices A (A1 and A2) and C to the report (A.2). Those findings informed the proposed final recommendations to be submitted to Full Council on 2 June 2026.

 

It was reported that the response rate from electors across the review area had been marginally under 5% of all electors, although rounding to the nearest whole figure presented this as 5%. The response rate during Phase I had been somewhat higher.

 

The analysis of responses to the draft recommendations on which views had been sought was presented in Appendix A to the report (A.2), with annex A1 containing elector responses and annex A2 containing responses from others with an interest in the Review. Appendix C set out additional views gathered by CVST through their supplementary consultation work with ‘seldom heard’ groups in the review area.

 

The Final Recommendations

The Committee was advised that the final recommendations had been prepared on the basis of the consultation outcomes. Where differences of opinion existed between electors and other interested parties, the overall number of responses had been used to support the proposed recommendation. Appendix D to the report (A.2) provided a summary of the relevant provisions of Part 4 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, confirming that all statutory requirements had been addressed in formulating the final recommendations.

 

The Committee noted that one of the proposed final recommendations concerned the term of office for the first cohort of councillors elected to any new parish councils. Civil servants had indicated, as part of preparations for local government reorganisation, that councillors for the new Unitary Authority would serve a five?year term, including one year on the initial shadow authority. As this Council had traditionally aligned parish council elections with those of Tendring District Council, the relevant recommendation had been drafted to ensure that the proposed new parish councils would, going forward, align their elections with those of the new Unitary Authority.

 

With the Chairman’s permission, the Leader of the Council addressed the Committee on the Community Governance Review. He noted that the process had progressed smoothly to date and reminded Members that the review had originally been proposed in anticipation of forthcoming LGR changes, intended as a means of giving residents greater influence over local matters.

 

Questions by Members:

Answers:

What similar processes have you had involvement with?

(Steph Robinson) The EALC have been engaged in several comparable processes. We were involved in the creation of Wickford Town Council that shares some similarities, and we’re currently working closely with Brentwood on Parishing following the LGR announcement. Now that the Unitary announcement has been made, it’s likely other authorities will move quickly to position themselves, but Tendring District Council remain several months ahead and are in a good position.

 

Councillor Griffiths recorded the Committee’s thanks to Councillor Mark Stephenson and the administration for proposing the parishing of Clacton?on?Sea, Holland?on?Sea and Jaywick Sands. He also expressed appreciation to the Officers for their continued support and efforts, noting the seamless process and effective communication.

 

Councillor Doyle extended thanks to Steph Robinson and Michelle Harper, noting that their previous involvement in Holland?on?Sea had made a positive difference to residents.

 

It was moved by Councillor Griffiths, seconded by Councillor Ferguson and RESOLVED that:

 

(1)   the contents of the report be noted in so much as it reminds the Committee 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; 

(2)    the outcome of the Phase II consultation exercise (Stage 4 in the Terms of Reference Timeline) as part of that Review (including the expenditure incurred) and comparator information around the base costs of Local Councils for the three separate areas be noted;

(3)   this Committee formally recommends to Full Council the acknowledgement of the implementation of the Community Governance Review which commenced on 1 July 2025 with the Terms of Reference for that review, the outcome of the Phase I consultation (set out at Appendix I to the A.2 report) and the content of this report (including the outcome of the Phase II consultation);

(4)    the following be submitted to Full Council on 2 June 2026 as the Committee’s final recommendations arising from the Community Governance Review and it is noted that, formally, determination by Council of those final recommendations will conclude the review commenced on 1 July 2025:

a.     That the current unparished area of the District of Tendring be parished with effect from 1 April 2027 and that this parishing shall consist of three new parishes as identified in the maps set out at Appendices F, G and H to the A.2 report which, together, cover the entirety of that unparished area;

b.     That the names of the three new parishes referenced in a. above shall be Holland-on-Sea (for the area edged black in Appendix F to the report (A.2)), West Clacton & Jaywick Sands (for the area edged black in Appendix G to the A.2 report) and Clacton-on-Sea (for the area edged black in Appendix H);

c.      That, in accordance with Section 94 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, all three new parishes shall have their own parish councils;

d.     That the alternative styles of the three parishes shall be as immediately below:

a.   Village – for the parish council of Holland-on-Sea;

b.   Town – for the parish of Clacton-on-Sea;

c.   Community – for the parish of West Clacton & Jaywick Sands;

e.     That the total number of parish councillors to serve on the three separate                                                parish councils shall be as follows:

a.   15 - on Holland-on-Sea Village Council;

b.   25 - on Clacton-on-Sea Town Council;

c.   12 - on West Clacton & Jaywick Sands Community Council;

[Note: References to style do not negate the basic position that all three areas will become civil parishes.]

f.       That no parish wards be created in the new parishes of Holland-on-Sea and West Clacton & Jaywick Sands;

g.     That, in the new parish of Clacton-on-Sea, the following parish wards be created and the number of parish councillors to represent the parish ward concerned be as set out:

Parish Ward Name	Area of the Parish Ward by reference to the existing District Council Ward	Number of Parish Councillors to represent the Parish Ward on the Parish Council
Bluehouse Ward	Bluehouse Ward	3
Burrsville Ward	Burrsville Ward	4
Cann Hall Ward	Cann Hall Ward	3
Coppins Ward	Coppins Ward	4
Pier Ward	Pier Ward	1
St James’ Ward	St James’ Ward	4
St John’s Ward	St John’s Ward	4
St Paul’s & Eastcliff Ward	St Paul’s Ward and that part of Eastcliff Ward within the Clacton-on-Sea Parish	2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

h.     That the term of office of the first parish councillors elected in May 2027 shall be five years to the normal retirement day in May 2032 and all subsequent terms of office shall be four years.  This would bring the term of office of the parish councillors in line with the second and subsequent elections to any unitary authority established for the area as part of local government reorganisation;

i.       To provide for interim parish councillors, for the period 1 April-10 May 2027 (when newly elected parish councillors for the three parishes would take up office) for the councils of the three new parishes as follows:

a.   Holland-on-Sea Parish – the District Councillors for St Bartholomews and Eastcliff District Wards and the Essex County Councillor for Clacton South Electoral Division;

b.   Clacton-on-Sea Parish – the District Councillors for Burrsville, Coppins, Pier, St James’, St John’s, St Paul’s and Eastcliff District Wards and the Essex County Councillors for Clacton North, Clacton South and Clacton West and St Osyth Electoral Divisions;

c.   West Clacton & Jaywick Sands Parish – the District Councillors for West Clacton & Jaywick Sands District Ward and the Essex County Councillor for Clacton West and St Osyth Electoral Division;

j.       That the Corporate Director  (Planning and Community) and the Corporate Director  (Law and Governance) be requested to make the necessary arrangements to secure the transfer of title for the allotment land at Rush Green, which will be within the new parish of Clacton-on-Sea, to be transferred from the District Council to the council for that new parish with effect from 1 April 2027;

k.      To authorise the Chief Executive to prepare the necessary Community Governance Order to bring the recommendations 4a.-i. above into being (and possibly 4j. too) and provide for the matters set out, for the Council’s seal to be applied to that Order and the legal obligations in respect of the making of such Orders complied with;

 

(5)   Officers be requested to publish the final recommendations to be submitted to Council on 2 June 2026 and to take appropriate steps to secure that persons who may be interested in the review are informed of those recommendations; and

(6)    Cabinet be invited, once Council has determined the recommendations made in this community governance review, to consider the next steps to be undertaken and allocation of resources and, as part of this, to determine the steps the Council considers sufficient to secure that persons who may be interested in the review are informed of the outcome and the reasons.