Agenda item

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

The Interim Assistant Director, Transformation and Change presented the report as included in the Agenda and provided background on the Priority Programme, processes carried out to date and timelines for Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation. 

The Interim Assistant Director referred Members to the recommendations as set out within the report which were that the Council’s preferred option was the three Unitary model and provided background on the alternative options which had also been considered.

The Interim Assistant Director highlighted the high level appraisal of the options, the criteria from Government and the scoring system used.  It was noted that this was a high level appraisal due to the short timescales involved.

The Chair thanked the Interim Assistant Director for the report and invited questions and comments from Joint Panel Members, as summarised below.

The Leader of the Council addressed the Panel and thanked the Interim Assistant Director for her support on the cross Council Officer Group.  The Leader of the Council provided an overview of meetings held with Government Ministers and the MHCLG.  He explained that there was no option to maintain the status quo, so Members should focus on scrutinising the recommendations as set out in the report.

Councillor Heneghan commented that it was important to support local communities and the focus should not just be about financial savings, a whole Norfolk unitary, would be too big and also did not consider future growth.  Councillor Heneghan indicated that she supported the three model unitary.

The Vice Chair, Councillor Long asked what assumptions Deloittes had made on big ticket items and cost pressures for services such as Education and Social Care.  He acknowledged that the three unitary model would require more statutory officers.  The Interim Assistant Director commented that it was a high level assessment at this stage and the data and detail would follow.  She acknowledged that a single unitary would create economies of scale, but there were other options that could be explored including joint commissioning and aggregating services.

In response to a question from the Vice Chair, the Interim Assistant Director explained that in putting together the submission to Government, work had been carried out to look at what other Council’s had done when converting to a Unitary in terms of the number of Councillors representing areas and it was acknowledged that efficiencies could be achieved in this area, although local representation was still important.

The Leader of the Council commented that the proposal was data and fact led and the Council had a good working relationship with Norfolk County Council and the other District Councils in Norfolk.  Indicative figures had been based on one Councillor per 5,000 of the population, and the Leader of the Council reminded Members that detail would follow later in the process.

In terms of the Government’s ambition to have Unitary Councils with a population of half a million or more, the Leader explained that there was some flexibility on this and not many other current Unitary Councils were this large.

The Leader of the Council referred to comments made regarding Statutory posts that would have to be triplicated should the three model unitary go forward and explained that there were many options that could be explored, whilst still creating economies of scale.

The Vice Chair commented that the fundamental principal of collaboration was critical and demand presence needed to be considered.  He commented that any joint or commissioned services would require political oversight.

Councillor Ratcliffe referred to the number of Councillors and explained that work had been carried out by the Boundary Commission in 2021 and this should be used to identify strong boundaries going forward.  She suggested that there be two Councillors per each existing County Division to ensure local representation continued.

Councillor Osborne requested that consideration be given to how the new Unitary would operate with the Strategic Authority and also with Parish and Town Councils.  He commented that the three Unitary model was preferred as it would ensure wider representation on the Strategic Authority.  It was noted that Suffolk were also considering a three unitary model, meaning there would be equal representation from each County.

The Interim Assistant Director confirmed that further engagement sessions with Parish Councils would be carried out as and when required.

Councillor Crofts asked if consideration had been given to incorporating areas of Fenland and it was confirmed that cross boundary authorities had been discouraged in the White Paper.

In response to a question from Councillor Collingham, the Interim Assistant Director explained that there had been ongoing dialogue with Norfolk County Council throughout the process and all Authorities agreed that there would need to work together to implement the final proposals.

Councillor Blunt indicated his support for the three Unitary model as he considered it best for the people of West Norfolk.

Councillor Devulapalli commented that she supported the three Unitary model and felt that it would bring opportunities to the area as well as remaining local.  She commented that it would be simpler for residents if they had one Authority to deal with as currently it could be confusing knowing which services were provided by the County and the Districts.

Councillor Kemp referred to the financial savings outlined in the report and commented that there was disparity between the report produced by Norfolk County Council and the Deloittes report.  She also commented that Norfolk County Council held substantial debt and asked what would happen to this.  The Interim Assistant Director explained that the debt belonged to all Norfolk County Council residents and further consideration would be given to debts, assets and staffing.

Councillor Ryves asked about the implication on services and borrowing levels going forward.  The Deputy Chief Executive commented that debt would need to be disaggregated, along with assets and this would all need to be taken into consideration before vesting day.  The Deputy Chief Executive provided an overview of the Council’s reserves as set out in the Medium Term Financial Plan and that some of the reserves were earmarked for certain services and delivery.  It was also explained that the financials included in the report were high level at this stage and modelling would come later when Interim Statutory Officers were appointed to the new Authority.

It was confirmed that the Government had indicated that burden funding may be available to contribute to the costs involved in creating the proposals, but the transition to Unitary status would needed to be funded by the Authorities themselves.

Councillor Beales confirmed that he would permit political questions at the Cabinet meeting being held on 19^th March 2025 should members require it.

In response to a question from Councillor Ryves, the Deputy Chief Executive explained that models for Council Tax would be explored and there were different options that could be considered and it was likely that the Government would introduce Legislation and guidance to support Councils going through the process.

Councillor Kemp referred to the distance that Councillors would have to travel for meetings and asked where they would be held.  It was explained that the Government were considering Legislation on permitting hybrid meetings and this could be an option in the future.

Councillor Ryves asked what would happen to the Local Plan and it was confirmed that Strategic Planning would fall under the remit of the Strategic Authority.  The Interim Assistant Director agreed to circulate a briefing note to Councillors which had been prepared on this matter.

In response to a question from Councillor Kemp, the Leader of the Council explained that the Interim Shadow Authority could have district representation.

The Leader of the Council thanked Members for their comments and reminded them that there was still a lot of work to be done with detail to follow, and now was the time for the Council to submit their preferred option to Government.

RESOLVED: That the Joint Panel support the recommendations to Cabinet, as summarised below.

Cabinet recommendations to Full Council:

1.    To note the content of the Interim Plan for Local Government Reorganisation in Norfolk report (Appendix B), alongside the report’s conclusion that the three unitary model option scored best overall against the government criteria and is therefore the preferred option for Norfolk.

2.    To endorse the three unitary model for LGR as this Council’s preferred option for submission to the MHCLG.

3.    To delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader to finalise and submit the Interim Plan to MHCLG on 21^st March 2025 based on the endorsement of recommendation 2 above.

4.    That following the submission of the Interim Plan and subject to the feedback received from MHCLG, the council continue to work with the Norfolk Districts to conduct resident and stakeholder engagement on the LGR proposals for Norfolk to inform the full business case.

5.    To delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader, for the development of the full business case for LGR in Norfolk to be returned to full Council for approval prior to submission.