To enable Council to consider the Community Leadership Overview & Scrutiny Committee’s final recommendations following the Community Governance Review undertaken for the currently unparished areas of the District.

Earlier on in the meeting, as recorded under minute 17 above, Councillor Alexander had declared an Interest in this matter insofar as he was the Council’s appointed representative to the Rush Green Allotments Trust.

 

Council discussed a reference report (A.2) that enabled Council to consider the Community Leadership Overview & Scrutiny Committee’s final recommendations following the Community Governance Review undertaken for the currently unparished areas of the District.

 

It was reported that, at its meeting held on 30 March 2026 (minute 46 referred), the Community Leadership Overview and Scrutiny Committee (“the Committee”) had considered a report of the Assistant Director (Corporate Policy & Support) that had informed the Committee of the current point in the community governance review process, the outcome of the Phase II consultation and which sought to enable the Committee to determine the recommendations to be submitted to Council in respect of the conclusion of the review.

 

That report had supported the Committee in its constitutional role in respect of Community Governance Reviews (as set out at Article 6.02 of the Council’s constitution – as follows):-

 

“The Community Leadership Overview & Scrutiny Committee, in accordance with Section 9F (d) and (e) of the Local Government Act 2000 (as amended) will also perform the functions relating to community governance reviews as provided for by Part 4 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”) where those functions have been delegated to the Committee by full Council (as set out in Part 3 Schedule 2 Responsibility for Council (Non-Executive) Functions).

 

In performing its delegated functions, the Committee is required, by section 100(4) of the 2007 Act, to have regard to the guidance, which is issued by the Secretary of State, under section 100(1) and (3), and the LGBCE under section 100(2) of the same Act.”

 

The Committee had made six main resolutions which had contained several recommendations to full Council. Those recommendations were fully detailed within the reference report (A.2).

 

Having considered the Committee’s recommendations arising from its consideration of the aforementioned matters, and to enable those recommendations to be approved and adopted:-

 

It was moved by the Chairman of the Community Leadership Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Councillor Steady) that Council formally:-

 

(a)    acknowledges the implementation of the Community Governance Review which commenced on 1 July 2025 with the Terms of Reference for that review, the outcomes of the Phase I and Phase II consultations and the final recommendations from the review as determined by the Council’s Community Leadership Overview and Scrutiny Committee;

 

(b)    approves 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 appended hereto this reference report which, together, cover the entirety of that unparished area;

 

(c)    approves that the names of the three new parishes referenced in (b) above shall be Holland-on-Sea (for the area edged black in the aforementioned Appendix F), West Clacton & Jaywick Sands (for the area edged black in the aforementioned Appendix G) and Clacton-on-Sea (for the area edged black in the aforementioned Appendix H);

 

(d)    approves 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;

 

(e)    approves that the alternative styles of the three parishes shall be as immediately below:

 

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

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

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

 

(f)     notes that references to style in (e) above and (f) below do not negate the basic position that all three areas will become civil parishes;

 

(g)    approves that the total number of parish councillors to serve on the three separate parish councils shall be as follows:

 

15 - on Holland-on-Sea Village Council;

25 - on Clacton-on-Sea Town Council;

12 - on West Clacton & Jaywick Sands Community Council;

 

(h)    concurs that no parish wards be created in the new parishes of Holland-on-Sea and West Clacton & Jaywick Sands;

 

(i)     approves that, in the new parish of Clacton-on-Sea, the following parish wards be created and that the number of parish councillors to represent the parish ward concerned be as set out immediately below:

 

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

 

(j)     approves, in order 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, 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 that all subsequent terms of office shall be four years;

 

(k)    approves, in order to provide for interim parish councillors, for the period 1 April to 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:

 

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

 

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

 

West Clacton & Jaywick Sands Parish – the District Councillors for the West Clacton & Jaywick Sands District Ward and that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Ward Councillors for West Clacton and Jaywick Sands Ward, to identify an additional appointee role to the interim parish council and to include that appointee role in the Community Governance Order;

 

(l)     authorises the Chief Executive to prepare the necessary Community Governance Order(s) to bring the Council’s formal decisions on this matter into being and to provide for the matters set out above, and for the Council’s seal to be applied to that Order and to ensure that the Council’s legal obligations in respect of the making of such Order(s) are fully complied with; and

 

(m)  invites Cabinet 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 behind the Council’s decisions in this matter.

 

A copy of Councillor Steady’s motion had been circulated to Members in advance of the meeting. Its contents had differed from the recommendations contained in the agenda document pack in that the wording of original recommendation (k) had been amended, and original recommendation (l) had been deleted entirely. The rationale, as also circulated, for those changes was as follows:-

 

“Recommendation (k) - as set out in the Monitoring Officer’s section of the report, the current representation on the interim parish council would be two people (Cllrs Dan Casey and Brad Thompson, due to the fact that Cllr Thompson had recently been elected as the Essex County Councillor for the Clacton West & St. Osyth electoral division).  By virtue of the Local Government Act 1972 we require three persons to constitute the parish council for this short initial period.  To allow time for consultation to take place on the appropriate office holder for this position, a delegation is sought to make the appointment/reference the appointee in the resulting Order.

 

Recommendation (l) - the Solicitors acting on behalf of the trustees of Rush Green Allotments have applied for, and been granted, a transfer of the allotment land concerned from this Council to the Official Custodian for Charities in trust for that charity.  The Charity Commission made this vesting Order on 23 April 2026. 

 

The Official Custodian for Charities is a statutory corporation that holds land and other assets on behalf of charities, primarily to simplify property management and protect assets.  The Official Custodian for Charities was established under the Charities Act 2011 to act as a trustee for charities in specific circumstances, mainly for holding land and other assets on their behalf.  Its primary purpose is to safeguard charity property and reduce administrative burdens, especially for unincorporated charities that cannot hold land in their own name. The custodian does not manage the land. Charity trustees retain all powers and responsibilities for administration, including leasing, paying taxes, or making management decisions.

 

As the land in question is no longer held by this Council, for the reasons set out above, original recommendation (l) to transfer the land to the proposed Clacton-on-Sea Parish Council is void and so should not be approved.”

 

Councillor P B Honeywood then moved, and Councillor Amos seconded that Councillor Steady’s motion be amended to read as follows:-

 

That Council formally:-

 

(a)    acknowledges the implementation of the Community Governance Review which commenced on 1 July 2025 with the Terms of Reference for that review, the outcomes of the Phase I and Phase II consultations and the final recommendations from the review as determined by the Council’s Community Leadership Overview and Scrutiny Committee;

 

(b)    that, in view of the cost to the taxpayer being unknown and the possibility that Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) does not go ahead, the recommendations from the Community Governance Review (CGR) not be considered this evening but instead be scheduled for consideration at the 13 October 2026 meeting of Full Council; and

 

(c)    invites Cabinet 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 behind the Council’s decisions in this matter.

 

A copy of Councillor Honeywood’s amendment had been circulated to Members in advance of the meeting. The reasoning, as also circulated, for the amendment was as follows:-

 

“On the basis that the Government’s intentions are pursued, this will allow the minded to decision on Greater Essex LGR to be progressed to draft legislation.  Otherwise, by this point any delay or reconsideration of the Government’s stance on LGR should have been announced and its implications on the recommendations from the CGR assessed. By recommendation (n) proceeding (as new (c)), greater clarity could be available on the likely budgetary positions for the proposed parishes.”

 

In relation to Councillor Honeywood’s amendment, the written advice of the Council’s Statutory Officers had also been circulated to Members prior to the commencement of the meeting. That advice was as follows:-

 

“The report to Council sets out the timeline for this CGR.  On page 173-174 the relevant decisions are referenced.  Commencing on 17 September 2024, it predated the Government’s announcements for LGR and the Devolution Priority Programme that Greater Essex responded to.

 

The original timetable for the CGR and consideration of the final recommendations envisaged a decision by Council in March 2026.  Due to the volume of responses received in the Phase I consultation (July-September 2025) the Community Leadership Overview and Scrutiny Committee approved a realignment of the timetable to delay the final recommendations from March to April 2026.  At the 30 March 2026 meeting of that Committee a further delay was agreed until June 2026 for the final recommendations to be determined.  This was specifically to avoid a decision in the pre-election period.  As such, we are already 2-3 months into the originally envisaged planning phase for delivering the outcome from the CGR.

 

The amendment, if passed, would add a further deferral of four months into that planning phase ahead of, what would be a 1 April 2027 commencement of the three parishes based on the recommendations.

 

In view of the amendment referencing the LGR process, Council’s attention is drawn to the report submitted to it under the heading “Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation” on pages 180-181.  This includes the following conclusion:

 

“…proceeding with this community governance review was appropriate as the approval of the review pre-dated the publication of the Government’s White Paper on 16 December 2024 on devolution and local government reorganisation and the commencement of the Devolution Priority Programme. In addition, the outcome of this Community Governance Review will not directly impact on the Government’s announced expectation for new Unitary Councils to establish appropriate neighbourhood Area Committees to facilitate engagement with residents in their Unitary Area.”

 

On page 185 of the report, Council is reminded that:

 

“The findings from the Phase II consultation are set out at Appendices A (A1 and A2) and C to this report. They inform the proposed final recommendations to be submitted to Full Council on 2 June.”

 

In respect of the cost to taxpayers, the report before Council identifies that this is a matter that is planned to be assessed following any decision to proceed.  On page 184, and referencing the consultation undertaken, the report says:

 

“As part of the Phase II consultation, consultees were also invited to indicate services, activities, events or arrangements that they would wish to see a possible new Parish Council be responsible for. This information can then inform a future process of looking beyond the base costs of operating a Parish Council in the event that establishing such Parish Councils is approved.”

 

In the event that the final recommendations are adopted by the Council (now or in October), it would be this Council that would determine the initial precepts for the funding of those Parish Councils. Thereafter it would be entirely a matter for the new Parish Councils based on the costs of services and functions they determine are required.

 

At Appendix E to this report is information put into the public domain as part of the Phase II CGR consultation and sets out both base costs for the recommended new parish councils (as assessed by Essex Association of Local Councils) and the average Band D equivalent of existing Parish Council precepts in 2025/26 of £75.94.  These pieces of information were addressed in the public meetings held during the Phase II consultation as well as being made available.

 

The final recommendations from the CGR are now finalised (as set out in the report) and cannot be re-opened.  Whatever the position is now and may be in October 2026 Full Council will still need to determine those recommendations. 

 

Any proposed Community Governance Order following determination of the recommendation from the review concerned would need to be in place by 15 October 2026 to enable the new parishes to be formed on 1 April 2027. This is because 15 October in any given year is the reference date for residency in respect of the electoral registers published on the 1 December in the same year.  The new registers of electors for the parishes would require the residency date to be ahead of 15 October.”

 

In addition to Councillor P B Honeywood, Councillors Amos, Bartlett, Steady, M E Stephenson, Doyle, Platt, M A Cossens, Griffiths, Baker, Calver, I J Henderson, Scott and Bray addressed Council during the debate on Councillor Honeywood’s amendment.

 

Pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 19.5, Councillor P B Honeywood, supported by, at least, nine other Members rising in their places, requisitioned a record of the voting on his amendment as set out above. That vote resulted as follows:-

 

Councillors For	Councillors Against	Councillors Abstaining	Councillors Not Present
Alexander Amos A I Cossens M A Cossens Fairley Griffiths Guglielmi P B Honeywood S A Honeywood Platt Skeels	Baker Barrett Barry Bensilum Bray Calver Casey Chapman BEM Codling Davidson Doyle Fowler Goldman I J Henderson J Henderson Oxley Placey Scott Smith Steady G L Stephenson M E Stephenson Sudra Talbot White Wiggins	Bush Ferguson Keteca Land	Davis Everett Harris Kotz Morrison Newton Thompson

 

Councillor P B Honeywood’s amendment was declared LOST.

 

In addition to Councillor Steady, Councillor M E Stephenson spoke during the debate on Councillor Steady’s motion.

 

Councillor Steady’s motion on being put to the vote was declared CARRIED.