URL: https://democracy.thurrock.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=954

Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: Yes

Purpose:

Content: Councillor Worrall introduced the report. “The proposal before you has been developed following months of discussion, debate and engagement - including with Thurrock residents through a summer programme of online and in-person events. I am pleased that we have given a voice to the people of Thurrock. Taking this opportunity means we can put a coherent Taking this opportunity means we can put a coherent and comprehensive alternative to government – one that doesn’t compromise on financial stability, is value for money, and keeps decision-making close to communities at its core. Our role in shaping these plans is a privilege but also a huge responsibility. I have lived in Thurrock my whole life and I care deeply about its future. We must make sure we maintain what makes this place what it is, but also embrace the future and address the challenges and opportunities that lay ahead. We must create a system that drives prosperity for all and continues to protect the most vulnerable in our communities. We must step forward and think afresh what local government can and should be for the rest of this century. In this proposal you will see: Four unitary authorities with equivalent populations of around 500,000 and all shown to be financially viable. Each authority will benefit from a major point of entry, either a port or airport. Each authority will benefit from the expertise that one of the existing upper tier authorities (Thurrock, Southend, and Essex Council) offer. This will help ensure that the excellent standard of public services will continue. We will keep the new councils close to the public by establishing Neighbourhood Area Committees giving a Forum for local residents to express their needs. I want to thank the officers who have put in an incredible amount of time and work put in to develop this proposal, including; the engagement they have facilitated throughout the summer to listen to residents’ voices. I am thankful to the Members who have provided feedback and engaged in the multiple Scrutiny Committees, the Cross Member Working Group or at the All Member Briefing. I am also thankful for the Members who actively took part in the January and March Cabinet meetings in which all members were invited to debate these issues.  Members are invited to join an additional briefing to hear more about these plans – this will take place in the coming weeks. Members will also have the opportunity to publicly debate the merits of all the proposals being submitted to government ahead of the government’s own consultation. This meeting will take place on 1st October. I have previously explained why I felt it was necessary to put an alternative option to government, and I won’t rehearse those arguments here now. But I will say, that more than ever, I believe that both the five-unitary and the 3-unitary model do not offer the right balance for the future of local government and the people of Essex. It would be wrong as the Leader of this council to not ensure the Government had a full range of proposals to consider, which they could then consult on before ultimately deciding. I am aware that other proposals have the backing of other councils in Essex and ours doesn’t. But local government reorganisation is more than just a popularity exercise. Its about looking to the future, across a complex landscape and being bold. Following my travels across Essex and having spoken to many Leaders – it is clear our proposal is credible and I continue to be convinced that our four is the right model. I welcome questions and comments from all council members and then I will invite Cabinet to take a decision as to whether to submit this proposal to government.”   Councillor Worrall invited Non-Executive Member Councillor Speight to ask his first question.   Do you not think it would now be appropriate to pause and reflect given the lack of support for our proposal and the danger that by not supporting the next best option for Thurrock we could lose out?   Councillor Worrall responded that they are not working to a council timeline, the timeline has been sent by the Government, there was no time to pause or reflect. The danger would be to not put forward a proposal. Councillor Worrall stated that she does not believe the 3 or 5 unitary council proposals work for people of Thurrock or Greater Essex. Councillor Worrall explained that it is not a decision for all 49 councillors to make, the Secretary of State makes the final decision and it is Cabinet’s job to ensure all options are on the table. Residents will be able to share their views and the support of other councils will not the determine the outcome. Councillor Worrall urged Councillor Speight to take part in the Government consultation and encourage residents to do the same.   Councillor Worrall invited Non-Executive Member Councillor Speight to ask a supplementary question.   Councillor Speight commented that in the Leaders opening speech she did not mention Thurrock once. Councillor Speight stated that Cabinet need to have a re-think and take on board what others have said as they have gone against the opportunity for a public debate.   Do you believe you are seeking the best interests of Thurrock in going with a plan nobody else supports?   Councillor Worrall responded that she wants the best for Thurrock and she knew from the moment she saw the other proposals that Thurrock had to put something different on the table. She noted that Councillor Speight often makes good comments and enters into debate but she does not believe he is right in this instance. The evidence has led to 4 being a sensible option and it needs to be considered alongside the 3 and 5 options.   Councillor Worrall invited Non-Executive Member Councillor Speight to ask his second question.   The proposal put forward by Thurrock makes “assumptions around debt support” that are unverified (s11.4 of the report). When will we as residents and members know whether these assumptions are correct, and does the proposed four-unitary model still work if they are not?   Councillor Worrall responded that MHCLG have made a commitment to provide an element of debt support to Thurrock Council and officers can provide you with the evidence of this which has been circulated before in best value reports. Like all of the proposals we have all made assumptions about what levels of support could be in our modelling. Due to the level of debt in Thurrock, commissioners have had meetings with officers from all councils to ensure the debt can be absorbed into the new unitary council.   Councillor Speight responded that the Cabinet is making a proposal based on a best guess and there are other options on the table that make better financial sense than the 4 unitary plan.   Councillor Worrall responded that the CIPFA document is one document which all councils will have to complete which proves that this plan is financially viable. It will be for the Government to decide and for commissioners to have an opinion on whether this is financially viable.   Councill Worrall stated that residents should have the opportunity to see what 4 look like.   Councillor Worrall invited Non-Executive Member Councillor Sammons to ask her first question.   I am very concerned that our local services, bins, road sweepers and parks may become even fewer: where will the depots for these services be?   Councillor Worrall responded that the locations of depots or any council buildings will be for the councillors of the new unitary councils to decide. The four unitary model will ensure the new unitary councils start on a sound financial footing and will remain close to communities. The proposal is not based on a reduction of front line services.   Councillor Worrall invited Non-Executive Member Councillor Sammons to ask her second question.   Does the executive have any thoughts on what level of council tax it is likely Thurrock residents will be elevated to if the preferred option with Brentwood, Epping and Harlow is attained?   Councillor Worrall responded that the new unitary councils will harmonise council tax so residents pay the same rate. There are regulations in place so the harmonisation will take place over a number of years. To harmonise with the west a band B rate will increase by £36 a year, a band C by £48 and a band D by £45. These increases are all below 3 % and the leader stated that she would expect appropriate schemes would be put in place to support residents with this increase.   Councillor Worrall invited Non-Executive Member Councillor Fox to ask his first question.   The residents’ survey states: “Many respondents fear being absorbed into larger or London-based authorities, which they believe would dilute local voice and control.” Why then is a four-unitary model that ‘looks to London’ being submitted by their own Council?   Councillor Worrall responded that this has been raised and discussed at length in scrutiny.  There is a zero chance of Thurrock becoming part of a London borough as a result of Local Government Reorganisation. When asked Thurrock residents stated that they liked living near London.   Councillor Worrall invited Non-Executive Member Councillor Fox to ask his second question.   It seems we are not yet able to form an opinion on the Key Metrics as financial indicators are severely lacking. By the report’s own admission (s1.5), there is still design work that needs to be done at this late stage. Does this proposal not represent an enormous leap of faith on TBC’s part that could, much like well-documented historical risky investments, bring further financial ruin to Thurrock, or do you have important information that we do not? The proposal for cabinet to consider tonight is a complete draft. The Design work is to do with the look and feel of the document and not the actual content. There is no hidden agenda or information.   Councillor Worrall invited Non-Executive Member Councillor Jones to ask his question.   Having studied all the proposals in great detail, I am personally minded to support the five-council option because it gives maximum local representation. How can the leader justify diluting the impact of local councillors on local governance?   Councillor Worrall responded that local representation is an essential part of Local Government Reorganisation and something she also advocates for. Thurrock is not the first council to undertake LGR and they have used metrics used by those previously for the number of councillors to be in each unitary. All elements of the business case have been balanced and they have been led by the evidence. The 5 unitary council option would not withstand the pressures. Councillor Worrall highlighted that the finances cause her more concern that the number of elected members as they do not add up. The Leader commented that she listened to the Basildon Scrutiny meeting of 9 September and the Leader gave a number of responses which were not accurate. Members were told that Thurrock Councils debt would be reduced to the £400 million mark by 2028. If Thurrock meet all our obligations we will still have in the region of £800 million of debt.   Councillor Jones responded that there are currently 720 elected members in Essex and this will be reduced to 280. Councillor Jones raised concerns as to how members would cope with the workload and the number of residents they would need to represent.    Councillor Worrall stated that she shared these concerns about the Essex numbers but this leads her to not follow the 3 unitary option and the worries of finances takes her away from the 5 option.   Councillor L Watson commented on the level of resident engagement and queried how much has been done compared to Essex and the 5 unitary option.   Councillor Worrall responded that a cross party working group has been set up. There has been at least 3 scrutiny meetings. There was a webcast meeting for residents which any resident could join. There was also a webcast for all 49 councillors, 23 joined it. There was a meeting at the Thameside Theatre where any resident could ask her or the Assistant Chief Executive a question. There have also been regular updates on the council website and Facebook page. The recommendations that have come out of scrutiny have been embedded in the proposal.   Councillor J Kent stated that he supports the recommendation. The 5 model does keep politicians closer to our communities but it isn’t the real world and the finances do not stack up. The 3 model is too remote and smacks of Esex County Council trying to replicate what they already have. The 4 model does work and delivers on creating an authority that can deliver the services our residents deserve. Councillor J Kent stated that the one plea he has is that there is proper engagement with some of our key partners; the voluntary sector and the business community.   Councillor Morris-Cook highlighted the huge cost in splitting services both Thurrock Council and Southend -On-Sea Council both do in terms of social care and education if they are partnered together. It would create chaos, 4 is the sensible option on the table.   RESOLVED:   2.1Cabinet approved the council’s Local Government Reorganisation proposal for a four unitary authority model ‘The right balance. Creating financially sustainable councils close to communities in Greater Essex, appended to this report:   2.2Cabinet agreed to submit the Plan to the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution on or before 26 September 2025;   2.3Cabinet delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive authority to submit Thurrock Council’s LGR proposal for a four unitary authority model, on or before 26 September on behalf of the council and to make any amendments (as referenced in section 1.5 above that Appendix A is draft) following consultation with the Leader and Deputy Leader; and   2.4Cabinet delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive authority to submit a joint covering letter to government, alongside Greater Essex partners on or before 26 September on behalf of the council and to make any amendments following consultation with the Leader and Deputy Leader.     Reason for the decision: as outlined in the report This decision is subject to call-in                                  

Date of Decision: September 17, 2025