Agenda item

To receive a report from the Chief Executive regarding the latest developments on Local Government Reorganisation and Devolution.

The Committee received and NOTED an *update from the Chief Executive on Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and Devolution.

The following was highlighted:

• The report set out the how the process started and the background context and the progress that had been made since the initial plan was submitted to the Government.
• The report covered some of the policy positions and the practicalities while a lot of the pieces were still in flux.
• Clarity was being sought by Town and Parish Councils regarding the impact of LGR.
• Whilst some councils were working collaboratively, some were not because this was a competitive process. This made partnership working more challenging than normal.
• The Government had made it clear that they would not revise the deadline and that it was their intent to make sure that LGR happened everywhere in England.

Discussion took place regarding:

• The final proposal had to be submitted by the end of November 2025. The Government would then reflect upon the responses it received and go out to consultation in spring 2026.The indicative timetable that had been received was that the Government would make a decision in summer/autumn 2026. In recent times the Government had suspended local elections, however, elections would need to be held in 2027 for the new shadow authority.
• Having a majority in favour of one proposal would hold minimal weight with the Government. However, it was expected that the majority would coalesce around the proposal that was most compelling and credible, showing how the proposed authorities would exist and deliver better outcomes in future, for the grouping that the league described.
• In relation to Towns and Parishes, would their model need to change? (Would they need more time commitment, allowances, payment and certified training?)There was likely to be an opportunity for those Town and Parish Councils who wanted to take on more and become more involved. 
  All of the proposals were going to have to give some constructive thought as to how they engaged with the community at local level. Clearly, existing towns and parishes were going to be a really good way to start that conversation and continue it going forward.
• LGR had different phases; the current report explained what had happened and where the County was at present with a view to giving some reassurance and confidence that the Council were on track to achieve what the Council voted for, which was to get the proposal submitted. The role of scrutiny at the moment was to ask was the Council on track to get this done?
• The risk log at the moment was concentrating on, ‘Were the Council going to get this done and submitted now?’

There was a wider risk log around capturing the risks of implementation, which was a secondary phase because the Council were having to make those changes incrementally.

• Collaborative Data Sharing had been difficult both in terms of the sheer quantity of information and data that councils held. Plymouth had agreed to host a data repository and the steering group had scoped out all the data streams that were going to be required from all 11 councils.
  The league were in the process of populating the repository, there was a commitment to get all that data in place by the end of July.
• The Scrutiny Committee may wish to consider forming a working group, particularly as the project moved to the stage where those involved were talking about what implementation looked like. Scrutiny Committee would be there to scrutinise the process as the Council transitioned through the next phase.
• With regard to convergence of systems. The focus for day one would be, was it safe and legal?  Was the Authority a legal entity and had the Authority stood up the things that needed to be stood up in advance to continue to maintain and operate safe functions on that day.
  Having transitioned from one set of organisations to another, the process of convergence was one that came after vesting day and continued sometimes for years. IT systems were a challenge to converge, but there were plenty of reports that actually cultural convergence was just as challenging.
  The group were sighted on these things. What the group were doing at the moment was collaborating across councils. They would be utilising the funds that Government had made available and getting the proposal submitted.

When it came to the implementation phase there would be a complete project team. By that point in time, the group of councils would no longer be competing against different proposals, the Secretary of State and Government would have made a decision. Therefore the task then, would be to come together as the 11 Councils and make it happen.

• Learning from others’ past experiences of LGR: Firstly, the group were utilising national case studies as developed by their professional groupings, the District Council's network, had helped on a few areas of best practice. The Local Government Association were hosting a local government reorganisation information and best practise repository which detailed a lot of experiences to learn from.

• There was the clear political intent of this government to see LGR through.
• With regard to the size and scale of the proposed Unitary Authorities, there were ways of mitigating the geographical dispersal of an area by the use of area boards in a large unitary. At present, Councillors were required to be present to vote and the commuting time could well be over three hours, was that the best use of Councillor’s time? The 4-5-1 proposal had been voted on at Full Council and it was not envisaged to take that decision back to Full Council again. Had thought been given to the allowance of remote attendance being a condition for the participation of Councillors? Nearly every area in the country had pushed back against the Government saying that they were a special case. Ultimately the decision as to the make-up of the new Authority would be a decision for the Secretary of State. The longer travel times were of concern to Councillors and members of the public who had expressed concerns around the accessibility of democracy. No consideration had been given at present to where the various Council functions would be based.
  All proposals would need to demonstrate how they could be responsive to local community need. There was no one perfect way to do that, but one could pretty much guarantee that all proposals would be trying to find ways to demonstrate that the advantages of economies of scale could be balanced off with local provision in some way, shape or form, whether that was through; community boards, area committees or clustering of parish councils into neighbourhood areas.
• A new Unitary Authority was unlikely to take all of the services that were currently provided by some of the districts, especially a lot of the discretionary services.
• The distance to travel would probably necessitate the new Authority having to have its meetings in the day time which would then exclude a significant number of people putting themselves forward to be Councillors.
• LGR was likely to take away a lot of representation from our community.
• A much smaller Unitary Authority, particularly in an area of rural deprivation, was likely to run into financial difficulties.
• There was funding made available from Central Government of £7.6million to support councils across England in developing these proposals, however, that money was to be divided between 21 areas, each with a number of districts alongside the County Council and with some smaller Unitaries in that space. In Devon there were 11 Councils which would split the amount allocated to Devon equally which meant that Mid Devon would receive £34,000 to develop the proposals. When reports were needed, the local councils would work together to commission those reports in order to achieve economies of scale and save costs. It was the intention of the Chief Executive and the Leader that only the funds made available from Central Government be used for this exercise. The £34,000 received from Central Government was just for this phase to support the production of the proposals to get submitted by 28 November 2025.

The costs of implementation were of a completely different order of magnitude. The firm expectation was that councils would have to fund all of the transition themselves.

• The role of the local Members of Parliament was to use their ‘soft power’ and influence, and speak in support of the local councils when questioned.
• Following the move to Unitary authorities would more money and resources be available for Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) provision? It would be the task of the current councils to make sure that the successor councils were safe and legal on day one. Obviously there were services that were delivered in a certain way at the moment and some of those services were delivered really well, while some of them were delivered in ways that could be improved. All such proposals that would come forward would no doubt be seeking to convince Government that if they agreed to that proposal, that, that would be the way to improve local services.
  
  

Note: *Update previously circulated.