Agenda item

The Commission considered a joint report of the Chief Executive, the Director of Corporate Resources and the Director of Law and Governance, the purpose of which was to present the Council’s draft business case for local government reorganisation in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 7’ is filed with these minutes.

 

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting Mr J. Miah CC and Mrs N. Bottomley CC who had been invited to attend for this item.  The Chairman explained that this was to ensure all political parties would be represented in the discussion. Mr Charlesworth CC had also been invited but had been unable to attend.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, in introducing the Council’s draft business case, the Leader made the following comments:

 

“I’d like to thank all officers for their hard work in getting the business case ready, in a very short timescale. It is testament to their professionalism that they have achieved this.

 

The business case presents our preferred option: creating a single unitary council for Leicestershire and Rutland. We have considered feedback from residents, and this proposal avoids splitting communities or changing city boundaries, which could affect our local heritage. We plan to use area committees and keep parish and town councils involved, so local identity and representation are maintained.

 

Our approach also aims to involve communities in shaping local services. Through local area committees and area planning committees, the new unitary council for Leicestershire and Rutland will ensure that local people are involved in the decisions that affect them and their local areas.

 

Combining services across county, district, and Rutland will reduce duplication, improve coordination, and provide consistent, high-quality services. This model avoids the problems that come with breaking up working teams, especially in critical areas like children’s social care, and helps smaller communities like Rutland remain resilient.

Financially, this proposal is strong. Independent analysis estimates annual savings of about £40 million, mainly from management and back-office efficiencies. These savings can be put back into frontline services, helping to protect them in the long term. Our approach is expected to deliver savings more quickly and with less risk than other options.

 

We have consulted with residents, businesses, voluntary groups, parish and town councils, and staff. Nearly half of survey responses supported a single unitary authority, while over two thirds were against expanding city boundaries and three quarters were against any change at all.

 

In regard to a City boundary extension and as discussed at the last meeting of the Commission, my view and the view of my Group, is that we need to recognise the City Council’s proposals, even though we do not agree with them.  It is not enough, however, to say that we do not agree with them.  So, our business case sets out an analysis of the different options and in particular what the impact of a City boundary extension would be on the surrounding County.

 

We believe this option meets all the criteria set by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. It is based on strong evidence, provides real financial benefits, and protects our heritage.

 

It is the only option that keeps the boundaries of the historic counties of Leicestershire and Rutland intact. Other options, such as creating smaller authorities or expanding city boundaries, don’t offer the same benefits and carry more risks- such as financially unviable councils- and fewer savings.

I hope members of the Commission will be supportive of this proposal and I’m happy to take any questions.”

 

Arising from discussion the following points were made:

 

(i)               Members welcomed receipt of the draft business case for comment and reiterated the Leader’s remarks regarding the hard work of officers in preparing this. It was noted that the final version would be more visually appealing, including images that would make the document feel more place based.

(ii)             Concerns were raised that too many options were currently included in the options appraisal section of the report. It was suggested that those no longer considered viable following the modelling work undertaken, be removed. Whilst it was helpful to recognise all the options considered, focus should be given to those ‘shortlisted’ as being most relevant to the Council’s preferred approach.

(iii)            A Member commented that the scoring of Option 7 (Three unitary councils for LLR) was overly negative regarding democratic governance and neighbourhood empowerment. It was suggested these could be reconsidered whilst still emphasising the strengths of the County Council’s preferred option. 

(iv)           Members agreed that the ‘Case for Change’ section (page 22) of the business case should be strengthened further, particularly the need to focus on those proposals that did not require administrative changes to boundaries, but which linked directly to service improvements. Members recognised that any change to boundaries would cause added delays.

(v)             Regarding the recent inclusion of Harborough, with Blaby and Oadby and Wigston, in the City Council’s base model the Director advised that this resulted in projected savings which were broadly comparable to other models it had put forward, albeit slightly lower due to disaggregation costs. It was noted that the City Council had been advised by MHCLG to adhere to Government guidance that districts be accounted for in their entirety.  It was noted that the County Council’s business case would take account of this additional option once the data had been confirmed.

(vi)           Members strongly and unanimously agreed that there should be no expansion of the City’s current boundary and asked that this be emphasised within the business case more clearly.  It was further suggested that, if the Government was minded to implement such an option, that a request be made to hold a referendum on that proposal.

(vii)          It was commented that the current draft of the business case might be read to suggest that the County Council would assume control of Rutland and district council functions, rather than outlining the intention to create a new, independent local authority for Leicestershire and Rutland. It was suggested that a simple change to the language used throughout the report would address this. 

(viii)        The Leader emphasised that the preferred single unitary approach  would be a union of current council structures, not a takeover. It was acknowledged that the business case should acknowledge and respect distinct localities and would, for example, recognise Rutland’s civic responsibilities. The Leader further commented that whilst Rutland Council might look to join other unitary proposals, in his view, Leicestershire was the best fit and the Commission agreed this should be reflected in the Council’s business case.  

(ix)           Some members commented on the potential impact a single unitary approach could have on local identity and representation and queried whether service points and satellite offices would be maintained. The Director of Corporate Resources confirmed that while changes might occur, key local access points would remain.

(x)             A member challenged claims that the restructure would unlock sufficient resources to address current financial challenges, as well as increase support to front line services. The Director of Corporate Resources explained that a single unitary authority would have reduced overheads and would free up resources currently tied up in delivering multiple back-office services across the County and seven district councils which could be diverted to front line services. It was acknowledged this would not be a ‘silver bullet’ and further actions would still be needed.  It was suggested that the language used in the business case be amended to make this argument clearer.

(xi)           Members welcomed references to community grants but requested clearer detail on safeguarding these within the proposals.

 

(xii)          Whilst the business case aimed to set out the high-level approach planned, how this would operate in practice would be determined by the political administration elected to the new authority once established. Recognising this, some of the proposals had not been specified in detail, for example, the operation of area committees and aims to increase community involvement.

(xiii)        Members were assured that in determining the approach to area committees and area committee boundaries, local views and needs would be sought and considered as part of this process. The Chief Executive reported that such committees would most likely match parliamentary constituency boundaries and so align with the newly elected members’ divisions which could be more clearly reflected in the draft report.

(xiv)        Members highlighted capacity concerns within parish and town councils noting that not all areas had one, and of those that did, some were understaffed, relying on volunteers with little resources or experience in delivering services.  Members emphasised that any devolution of services must be voluntary and supported by appropriate standards and governance arrangements.

(xv)         The proposal for single member wards was welcomed by some on the basis this would be much simpler for residents, having one elected representative as a point of contact. A criticism of current local government structures was that residents did not always know whether to contact their parish, district or county councillors. This approach together with joined up county and district services would reduce confusion and duplication within the system. It was requested that this be positively reflected in business case.

(xvi)        Some members challenged the adequacy of 90 councillors to manage projected workloads under a single unitary structure and commented that capacity could be an issue.  It was noted that the figure was close to the upper limit (99) set by the Boundary Commission.  The Chief Executive advised that arrangements would be reviewed to ensure effective representation by the Boundary Commission should it view this to be inadequate. It was suggested that workload would not necessarily increase, as 90 councillors was much higher than the 55 seats currently allocated to the County Council.  There would therefore be capacity for newly elected members to take on current County Council functions and the wider community role currently fulfilled by district councillors. 

(xvii)      A key consideration for the Government would be how sustainable a proposal would be over the long term.  To demonstrate this account needed to be taken of projected population growth.  This would unlikely affect the City Council’s proposals but could have a significant impact on the County’s approach over the next decade.  It was suggested that this was a gap in the current draft submission and risked the Council not meeting the Government’s criteria in this regard.

(xviii)     Members voiced concern regarding the operation and powers of planning committees under a single unitary structure, including the balance between strategic and local decision making and ensuring local representation. The Chief Executive advised that strategic planning decisions (such as major developments that will have a wider impact on the area) would be taken by a central committee, with area planning committees established to consider local planning applications. This approach would ensure alignment with the new single Local Plan for the area which would need to be developed and allow for broader consideration and coordination of strategic infrastructure. Whilst it was recognised that much would depend on the Government’s approach, currently set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, Members requested greater clarity be included within the business case on this issue. 

(xix)        Concerns were raised that creating a single unitary council would have a negative impact on the varied nature of some services currently delivered by district councils.  The Director for Corporate Resources suggested that conversely one Council for Leicestershire and Rutland would bring consistency, for example regarding the retention of housing stock and in the delivery of services generally across the County which would avoid what was currently a post code lottery approach.

(xx)         Members noted that whilst the return rate for the online survey had been limited, this was not the only source of feedback relied upon.  A breadth of engagement activities had been undertaken and the responses received had provided a valuable steer on the public’s views.  This included feedback provided to the consultation undertaken in March 2025.  It was noted that the Government would also undertake a full consultation when final proposals were put forward. 

(xxi)        It was agreed that the Business Case should include a table of gross expenditure and staffing levels for all Leicestershire authorities that would be impacted. 

(xxii)      A Member suggested that the Annual Delivery Report and Performance Compendium provided a wealth of performance data and demonstrated the County Council’s strong track record in delivering good services.  It was suggested that this could be referenced within or appended to the business case.

(xxiii)     Concerns were expressed about public statements made regarding data sharing within the district councils business case which were inaccurate. Members agreed that these should be addressed and the County Council’s response referenced in the executive summary of the business case.  Members further agreed that whilst the two rebuttals within the agenda pack were on public record, these should be sent to district councils to make clear the County Council’s position on these issues.

 

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

(a)  That the Council’s draft business case for local government reorganisation be noted;

(b)  That the comments now made by the Scrutiny Commission and suggestions for improvement, be presented to the Cabinet for consideration at its meeting on 25^th November 2025;

(c)   That the Cabinet be requested to address and respond to each of the comments and suggested amendments now put forward for consideration and to provide reasons if these were not accepted.