Meeting Details

Sir Bob Russell addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1).  Whilst the report before Council was welcomed it was noted that there was no commentary from the political leadership of the Council on their view of the abolition of the City Council.  Councillors were invited to indicate their support to the following statement:

“Colchester City Council did not seek, nor does it welcome, its abolition as proposed in the Government’s “English Devolution White Paper”. Colchester, in various forms, has had self-governance since the granting of its first Royal Charter in 1189 – 836 years ago. However, if the Government is determined to implement legislation leading to the demise of Colchester City Council – the status of City was granted by the late Queen Elizabeth II less than three years ago – then the City Council requests that Colchester’s long-established civic traditions are continued”.

It was highlighted that at several points in the report the importance of community engagement and consultation was stressed as was the need to consider unparished areas. It was noted that the English Devolution Bill was not yet before Parliament even though it was planned to hold Mayoral elections in May 2026.  The proposed Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation Working Group should hold public sessions with members of the public and residents’ groups. The risks that the new unitary authority may not share the priorities of Colchester City Council or that the attention paid to the needs of Colchester may be diluted under the new arrangements were noted, as was the significant cost of implementation.  The population threshold of 500,000 for new unitary councils seemed excessive as it was larger than any London borough. Concern was expressed about the impact of reorganisation on City Status and civic traditions.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked Sir Bob for his comments and stressed that the Council was committed to do the best it could for Colchester.  It would address the issues about unparished areas through a Community Governance review.  The process was still at an early stage.  The approach would be cross party, open and with public and community engagement. 

John Hutchinson addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1).  As a member of the Executive Council of Witham Constituency Conservative Association it was disheartening to see Essex County Councillors support this devolution process based on their wish to avoid democratic elections. Essex did not need to rush forward on this and the city and district councils  had been forced into the process without any consultation with their electorate. Concern was also expressed about the proposed imbalance of the representation between Southend and Thurrock on one hand and the Essex County Council area on the other.  The process was entirely undemocratic.  The process should have involved consultation leading to a properly thought-out project to create a small number of unitary authorities in Essex, and with local councils having a choice. Elections should not have been postponed. As the largest council area in Essex with 10% of the population, would Colchester allow this to happen over its head? It should insist on representation on the Mayoral Authority representative group and needed to make its voice heard now. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that the assertion that the Council had not sought this was correct.  Devolution and local government reorganisation had to be approached in practical terms and he believed that Colchester’s voice was being heard.  He was on the Devolution Steering Group and was Vice Chair of the Essex Leaders and Chief Executives Group, which meant Colchester was at the centre of the discussions.  Devolution had been successfully implemented in other parts of the country and there had been discussion about the potential introduction of devolution in Essex over recent years. He was personally supportive of making the most of the opportunity. 

Cariina Cooper addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1).  Devolution was said to enable more decisions to be taken at a more local level, making it easier to tailor decisions to local need and priorities and giving communities a greater say in decisions that affect them. However, research carried out into Agenda 2030, which devolution tied into, showed that this relinquishing of control by government would give unprecedented control and power to the Mayor of each region with significant powers to bypass Westminster and significant powers to implement change on housing, planning and policing, including replacing Police and Crime Commissioners.  The research had shown that devolution was a trojan horse to bring in higher carbon taxation and restrictions on liberty to meet carbon reduction targets.  The public had not been involved at all and there was either a presumption of public consent or a complete lack of regard for it. The cancelling of local elections was unacceptable. A decision with such wide-ranging impacts should not be taken without full consultation.  The Council should stop doing what it was told and act for the public good. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded that it was not accepted that this was a trojan horse to give wide powers to Mayors. In terms of concerns about a lack of accountability, the administration and the wider Council were held to account in several ways.

Melina Spantidaki addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) and explained how she had been raised with democratic values and the Greek origins of the word “democracy”. Democracy was based on a plurality  of opinions expressed in freedom and with decision making through voting. Anything that affected that negatively was a threat to democracy.   It was of concern that the word democracy was not mentioned in the Devolution white paper.  Councillors were elected to represent the views of those who had elected them and should listen to all those in the community. They were accountable for their actions. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and thanked the speaker for her comments and stressed that councillors would do all they could to serve the best interests of residents. 

It was proposed by Councillor King that the recommended decisions set out in the report from the Chief Executive be approved and adopted, subject to the updated Appendix C attached to the Supplementary Information.

Councillor Dundas moved Main Amendment A as follows:-

That the recommended decisions set out in the report from the Chief Executive be approved and adopted, subject to the updated Appendix C attached to the Supplementary Information and subject to the following changes:  

That the following paragraphs be added in addition to Recommended Decision paragraph 2.1 set out on pages 5 and 6 of the agenda:

(i) expresses its strong view that any debt held by any existing district or unitary Councils not forming part of a new unitary council covering the current Colchester City Council area becoming a liability in part or in whole of the new Council or Colchester residents would be wholly unacceptable and such a solution would not be supported by this Council.

(j) agrees that any solution must produce viable and financially sound Councils across Essex with balanced revenue budgets and sustainable reserves.

Councillor King indicated that Main Amendment A was accepted and the motion was deemed amended accordingly.

Councillor J. Young moved Main Amendment B as follows:-

The recommended decisions set out in the report from the Chief Executive be approved and adopted, subject to the updated Appendix C attached to the Supplementary Information and subject to the following changes:  

The addition of the words “and reports back to Group Leaders on a regular basis” at the end of paragraph 2.1(a); 

The inclusion of the additional wording after paragraph 2.1(h)

(i) recognises that such large-scale reorganisation will be unsettling for staff, and support and guidance will be provided to all staff as the process progresses towards the creation of a new Unitary Authority.

Councillor King indicated that Main Amendment B was accepted and the motion was deemed amended accordingly.

Following the acceptance of Main Amendments A and B the revised wording of the recommended decisions was as follows:-

It is recommended that Full Council:

(a) mandates the Leader of the Council and Chief Executive to seek to ensure that the position of Colchester City Council (and Northeast Essex more generally) is represented as fully as possible in any negotiations around devolution and local government reorganisation, recognising its opportunities and challenges and reports back to Group Leaders on a regular basis. 

(b) recognises that Members and Officers must continue to deliver this Council’s best value and other statutory duties for the benefit of its residents, businesses and communities every day it exists.

(c)  notes the update on Local Government Reorganisation for Greater Essex and the formal invitation, as set out in Appendix A;

(d) supports the opportunity for Full Council to provide its views through debate prior to the Leader making an Executive Decision on the Interim Plan setting out progress on developing proposals in line with the criteria and guidance; 

(e) acknowledges the efforts of both the Leader and the Chief Executive, with the support of other members and officers, in representing Colchester City Council, in the development of the Interim Plan; 

(f) subject to feedback through debate, endorses the direction of discussion on developing plans as set out in the Interim Plan, as set out in Appendix B;  

(g)  notes that 5 Unitary Authorities in principle is the current preference as highlighted in the Interim Plan of most Councils across Greater Essex, subject to the evidence and the consultative process ahead; and

(h) welcomes the continuation of providing periodically, briefings to Members (and reports to this Council as necessary) as the agenda around devolution and local government reorganisation develops locally.

(i) expresses its strong view that any debt held by any existing district or unitary Councils not forming part of a new unitary council covering the current Colchester City Council area becoming a liability in part or in whole of the new Council or Colchester residents would be wholly unacceptable and such a solution would not be supported by this Council.

(j) agrees that any solution must produce viable and financially sound Councils across Essex with balanced revenue budgets and sustainable reserves.

(k) recognises that such large-scale reorganisation will be unsettling for staff, and support and guidance will be provided to all staff as the process progresses towards the creation of a new Unitary Authority.


2.2 To approve the formation of a cross-party Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation Advisory Group the details of which are contained at Appendix C to this report.


On being put to the vote the substantive motion was carried (MAJORITY voted FOR).