Here is a summary of the Thurrock Council meeting held on 1 October 2025. The main item discussed was a motion regarding Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), which led to a debate after an amendment to the motion was ruled invalid. Councillors discussed the options for LGR, particularly focusing on the proposal for four unitary councils in Greater Essex.

Local Government Reorganisation

Councillor Neil Speight proposed a motion to debate options for Local Government Reorganisation, inviting the Leader of the Council to present her chosen option and alternatives for members to vote on. Councillor Speight later amended his motion, but the Mayor, Councillor Sue Shinnick, ruled the amendment invalid because there was no single proposition arising from the amendment on which the council could vote. As a result, a debate took place without a vote.

Councillor Neil Speight expressed his preference for option 3, citing its potential for financial security, but noted concerns about the creation of a tier of local governance to support the three councils.

Councillors Worrall, Coxshall, Morris-Cook, Anderson, Sisterson, Jones and Benson contributed to the debate, raising the following points:

• The Leader of the Council was unclear on what the motion was asking for.
• The Leader and Cabinet supported the proposal for four unitary councils in Greater Essex to safeguard local identity, decision making, communities and protecting the most vulnerable people.
• The proposal had been explained through overview and scrutiny, community engagements, working groups and forums over the last six months.
• The proposal was built on evidence and equity.
• Option 4 offered the right balance.
• The government would ultimately review all proposals, consult and make the decision.
• Members should fully contribute to the government's public consultation.
• The meeting should have been held earlier before the report was presented to cabinet.
• Option 3 followed the model seen by Essex County Council.
• No matter where residents reside they may feel some distance from their local council.
• Only options would be 3 or 4, considering option 5 would be foolish.
• Residents should be encouraged to take part in the consultation.
• There was an opportunity to make an economic powerhouse in South Essex.
• Ministers should look to support the Essex County Council model.
• If Thurrock had not stepped forward with option 4, the options left would have been inadequate and deeply damaging.
• Neither option 3 nor 5 met the Government's criteria for sustainable community focused reorganisation, nor did they offer a safe, legal or delivery a pathway forward.
• Option 4 was the only proposal that striked the right balance.
• The submitted option was submitted not to follow the crowd but to lead.
• This option would protect residents and deliver value.
• The government would make the decision following a full consultation with residents.
• Members had the opportunity this evening to express their views.
• The rationale for the administration's decision had been predicted on finding a balanced financial sustainability, stability and retaining a sense of local democracy.
• To forego future financial stability there had to be fantastic benefits that Thurrock would get in exchange for forgoing that possible future stability to which the member could not see that.
• It was for councillors to facility closeness within communities.
• There was a lack of clarity on the benefits that Thurrock would gain with option 4 v. option 3.
• There was a potential risk of combining two existing unitary authority services which could be complex, costly and a risk to the excellent work being undertaken in Thurrock.
• Some members did not understand what devolution and LGR stood for.
• The report put forward had the best interest of Thurrock residents.
• It was good to have a debate and hear the opinions of all members.
• There was concern that residents may not be represented as they should be.
• There were questions on whether the reduction in the number of members would affect how scrutiny was undertaken.
• There was confusion amongst residents.
• The decision had been led by figures and should have been included in the debate.
• Thurrock had no local identity where a local identity would remain in a Thames based bias council area.
• The debate should have taken place weeks ago prior to the report being submitted.
• There was acknowledgement of the work required in local community engagement.

Councillor Fraser Massey seconded the amended motion, acknowledging that debate was more important than the vote since the report had already been submitted. He noted that option 4 had strength over option 3 because there was room for population growth, and acknowledged that more work was required to engage with residents as the consultation moved forward.

Councillor Neil Speight thanked members for their contributions and acknowledged the excellent report. He noted that the point of the meeting had been for members to debate on behalf of their residents, which he felt had not happened. He also noted that if the consultation did not demonstrate the support of the council there could be a rethink that all members could support.

Here is a link to the webcast of the meeting.