Members
are asked to refer pages 93 – 110 of the document pack.
Minutes:
The Commission considered the appendices relevant to its remit in the report of the Chief Executive to the Cabinet on 16 October 2018 regarding the development of a unitary structure for local government in Leicestershire. These appendices set out the opportunities that a unitary structure could afford to corporate services. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 9’ is filed with these minutes.
The Chairman welcomed the Leader of the Council, Mr N J Rushton CC, to the meeting for consideration of the appendices relating to Economic Growth and Development, and Regulatory Services and the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Lead Member for Resources, Mr J B Rhodes CC to the meeting for consideration of the appendices relating to Combined Property Services and Revenue Collection.
Arising from discussion and questions the following points were raised:-
Appendix F – Economic Growth and Development
(i) Members advised that Oadby and Wigston Borough Council and Harborough Borough Council had retained their housing stock. The appendix had only specified Charnwood Borough Council, Melton Borough Council and North West Leicestershire District Council in this regard.
(ii) The appendix suggested that a single choice based lettings system would be cheaper to administer than having a separate scheme for each district. However, members advised that Oadby and Wigston Borough Council had recently withdrawn from a choice based lettings scheme as it had wanted to change its criteria to match the stricter criteria that Leicester City Council had in place. In response to this it was suggested that a single unitary council would be able to determine the criteria and geography for its own scheme and there would be more scope for a single larger organisation to work with the City Council on alignment of criteria. Some members of the Commission retained their reservations about this proposal.
(iii) Members advised that the District Councils had given consideration to Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) schemes but had chosen not to develop them as they attracted less money to mitigate the cost of developments than Section 106 contributions. In response, it was confirmed that it would be up to the new council to consider whether a CIL would be appropriate. The reason for including it in the appendix was to highlight that a single, countywide scheme would be less expensive to introduce.
(iv) The financial modelling included an assumption that there would be a rationalisation of the local government estate across Leicestershire on the basis that the new authority would employ less staff than the current structure. However, details including the location of buildings had not been considered. This would be a role for the new authority, taking into account the economic impact on towns and villages, cost, business need and value of the land.
(v) The Leader of the Council confirmed that a benefit of having a single authority for Leicestershire would be the greater opportunity for promoting economic development than the current structure provided. This included being able to have a larger economic development team which could respond strategically to opportunities.
Appendix G - Regulatory Services
(vi) It would be possible to establish a single enforcement team including planning enforcement, due to the overlap of skills with the Trading Standards service. Some unitary authorities had done this.
(vii) Legislation was currently going through the parliamentary processes which would require Trading Standards to have greater involvement in the private rented sector, particularly with deposit schemes. Leicestershire Trading Standards was in a strong position to respond to this requirement.
(viii) The Trading Standards Service already had some involvement in licensing, such as explosives and making representations to district council licensing committees regarding alcohol licences, in relation to underage sales. It was felt that a single Public Protection Service for Leicestershire would be well placed to manage licensing services. There was evidence that other unitary authorities managed services in this way.
(ix) A single Public Protection Service would still be able to put localised schemes in place, for example the selective licensing of houses of multiple occupancy. However, it would also have other tools at its disposal to tackle rogue landlords. The Trading Standards Service already targeted Freshers’ Fairs at Loughborough University to advise students. A larger, multi-disciplinary team would be able to put the necessary expertise in place to deal with issues holistically and support legitimate businesses.
(x) It was noted that a unitary authority would be better placed to bid to provide enforcement services on a regional and national scale than a two tier area. This would be a way of generating income for the new authority.
(xi) Members acknowledged the benefits of a single Public Protection Service for Leicestershire and queried why this was not already in place as a shared service. It was confirmed that the barriers to setting up a shared service included the varying priorities and allocation of resources across organisations. A shared service arrangement across Trading Standards and Environmental Health services in Worcestershire had been in place until recently. However, different funding decisions across the authorities involved had led to its failure.
(xii) It was expected that, once the United Kingdom had exited the European Union, small and medium sized businesses would need greater support from Trading Standards and enforcement services. A single authority providing all enforcement and compliance services as well as support would be better and easier for local businesses than the current arrangements.
Appendix H – Combined Property Services
(xiii) The Cabinet Lead Member for Resources advised the Commission that a single property service would be more efficient than the current fragmented services. There would also be greater opportunities to employ staff with the right balance of expertise. He confirmed that, were appropriate, buildings would be retained in localities to enable the local delivery of services.
(xiv) There was currently pressure on the County Hall site, particularly in terms of car parking, and a project to address this pressure was ongoing. In response to a suggestion that the County Hall site be sold for housing and services relocated to more economically deprived areas, the Commission was advised that the building had recently been upgraded and the cost of disaggregating and relocating services would be too great to make this suggestion viable.
(xv) It was felt that there were benefits to locating more than one organisation on the same site, particularly where it enabled a more comprehensive service to be provided to members of the public. The aim of any property strategy would be to provide services in the right place for residents at the most optimal cost. Where there were no public facing services there would be greater flexibility to determine the best location, taking into account issues such as travel costs.
(xvi) It was suggested that, if the unitary proposal were to be taken forward, it would be helpful to understand how many people accessed local authority buildings across Leicestershire for help and advice. It would be important to ensure that the transition to a unitary authority did not disadvantage vulnerable residents.
(xvii) Members emphasised that if a new unitary authority for Leicestershire was established it should seek to avoid silo working. For example any decisions regarding the deployment of local government estate must be linked to considerations regarding economic development in the county.
(xviii) Currently, the County Council and District Councils sometimes competed for the same tenants. An example of this was in Coalville, where both authorities owned similar buildings. This was felt to be an inefficient use of public sector estate.
(xix) The provision of leisure facilities was variable across the county. A single unitary authority would be able to take a broader view of leisure services and develop a consistent offer for Leicestershire. It was suggested that a proposed leisure offer could be included in the business case for a unitary authority.
Appendix I – Revenue Collection
(xx) It was noted that most councils operated a combined revenue and benefits service. There were advantages to developing a single benefits service Leicestershire, for example for council tax discretionary discounts, as a strategic view could be taken and certain behaviours could be incentivised.
RESOLVED:
That the report and information now provided be noted.