Meeting Details

Apologies were received from Councillors Appleton, Maclean, Rippingale and Smithson. 

The High Steward, Sir Bob Russell, addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1). This date would be recorded as the date when the Council took its first formal steps to end Colchester’s powers of self-determination.  The North Essex Council which the motion proposed supporting would have a population of 510,000 and would stretch from Jaywick to Weathersfield. It could not be considered local.  It was appreciated that the Council had not requested local government reorganisation and the process was being driven by central government despite not being a manifesto commitment.  Democracy was not mentioned in the White Paper. The proposal supported by Essex County Council, which would include a merger with Uttlesford and an even large unitary Council with a population of over 600,000, was even worse. It was less than three years since Colchester had been granted City Status and it was not clear if this would survive the reorganisation process, nor the historic office of Mayor or other civic traditions. Unlike previous  reorganisations, the name Colchester would be removed from any form of local government. Bigger councils did not necessarily lead to better services for residents. The highways service had not been improved by being transferred to Essex County Council. Historically smaller councils had been able to run a much wider range of services than current local authorities. The government also proposed to significantly reduce the number of councillors, possibly by as many as two thirds. It was hoped that this would prove to be short interregnum and that a council in Colchester would be restored.   Residents would expect a named vote to be taken on the motion before Council.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy responded and emphasised that the Council had not sought local government reorganisation. However there was an opportunity in the proposed changes.  Social care was not being well delivered and there was opportunity for transformation in North Essex to bring together social care, health and housing.  He was confident that the spirit of the Council would continue in the successor authority and was also confident in the future of Colchester. It would have a significant influence on the new unitary authority.  The Council needed to make the best of the structure put forward by government and also do its best to retain City Status and civic traditions. 


Pam Cox MP addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) to thank councillors and officers for the help and support she had received in her period of office as a councillor and to stress the importance of the work done by local government.  Thanks were also given to those involved in the work on local government reorganisation.  Devolution would deliver better opportunities for Colchester and Essex. As the Member of Parliament for Colchester she confirmed her support for Colchester in whatever structure came forward from local government reorganisation and wanted to see Colchester at the heart of the future structure of local government in Essex.  She personally supported the 5 unitary authority model which best reflected the existing sense of place and belonging rooted on the five historic towns and cities. Colchester was the leading one of those cities.  The historic opportunity this presented needed to be grasped.  

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, expressed thanks and stressed that Colchester needed its Member of Parliament to stand up for the city.  Her support was welcomed.

Councillor Bentley (in respect of his position as Leader of Essex County Council) and Councillor Barber (in respect of his position as Deputy to the Leader of Essex County Council and Special Lead Member on Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation at Essex County Council) declared a non-registerable interest in this item.  They explained they had taken advice from the Monitoring Officer who had advised that they were able to contribute to the debate and vote on the item. 

The Mayor indicated that Group Leaders would be able to speak for up to 10 minutes in the debate.

It was proposed by Councillor King that the recommended decision in the report by the Chief Executive, as set out below, be agreed:-

It is recommended that Full Council, in response to the formal invitation from the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution to submit proposals for a single tier of local government for Greater Essex by 26 September 2025, in accordance with the statutory criteria as set out in the invitation:

(a) supports the City of Colchester forming part of the proposed new North East Essex Unitary Council as most likely to:

(i) keep local government as local and accountable as possible;
(ii) meet the needs for a sense of place and recognised geography;
(iii) build on existing partnerships and joined up decision making;
(iv) ensure on going delivery of high-quality services; and
(v) be financially viable and sustainable, assuming good stewardship by the future unitary councils; and
(vi) the statutory criteria have been addressed.

(b) expresses its views on whether Colchester City Council is included as a supporting Council to the Final Plan for Local Government Reorganisation “The proposal for growth: Five new unitary councils for Essex” for submission in response to the Minister’s invitation;

(c) agrees that should materially different information be received to that available at the time of this paper’s submission the Leader may need to revisit the position of Colchester City Council, before the Essex wide submission to the Secretary of State;

(d) in respect of (c) the Leader will inform all Members and consult the Advisory Group and the Chief Executive, prior to any such decision being made;

(e) notes that in response to the statutory consultation stage, formal decisions will be taken by the Leader, in consultation with the Chief Executive, as an executive function, without further reference to Cabinet/ Full Council following notification to all Members of the proposed draft response; and

(f) supports the Leader and Chief Executive continuing to provide periodic briefings to Members (and reports as necessary) as the agenda around devolution and local government reorganisation develops locally, acknowledging the extensive detail they will need to convey as this process proceeds.


On being put to the vote the motion was carried (TWENTY-FIVE voted FOR, FIFTEEN voted AGAINST and SIX ABSTAINED from voting).


A named vote having been requested pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 15(2) by Councillor Willetts, supported by Councillors Dundas and Lissimore, the voting was as follows:-

FOR: Councillors Alake-Akinyemi, Arnold, Cory, Çufoglu, Goacher, Goss, Harris, Jay, King, Kirkby-Taylor, Law, Luxford Vaughan, McCarthy, McLean, Moffat, Osborne, Pearson, Scordis, Smalls, Smith,  Sommers, M. Spindler, Warnes, J. Young and T. Young. 

AGANST: Councillors Barber, Bentley, Buston, Calverley, Davidson, Dundas, Hagon, Laws, Lissimore, Naylor, Parsons, Powling, Rowe, Sunnucks and Willetts. 

ABSTAINED FROM VOTING: Councillors Kelly, Scott-Boutell, C. Spindler, Tate, the Deputy Mayor (Ellis) and the Mayor (Lilley).