Flawed reorganisation proposals don’t add up, says council

A report to be considered by Full Council says that the move to single-tier, ‘unitary’, authorities required by Government in Staffordshire ignores that the current two-tier system of county and borough councils is already delivering good cost-effective services, accountable at a local level.

And it notes that the Government’s arbitrary minimum population size of 500,000 for reorganised councils has already been challenged by the Local Government Association, while several years of restructuring will bring large up-front costs, disruption and a loss of local democratic accountability – with no guarantee of better services for residents.

Simon Tagg, Leader of Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, said:

The Council is already delivering low-cost effective services to our community and is accountable to residents at a local level.
 

I haven’t heard any argument which shows how forced change from the current position will improve residents’ lives and it’s illogical that they should be forced to accept something which lowers current levels of service and performance.
 

Therefore, it’s only right that we make the arguments on behalf of the residents of Newcastle-under-Lyme and insist that if there is to be change, they are given a vote on their future in a local referendum.”

The report to Full Council on 19 March, written to meet the Government’s deadline for interim reorganisation proposals, outlines several possible options for investigation if the move to unitary authority is insisted upon. They include creating:

• a single authority on the current Newcastle boundaries, which would be the same size as existing unitary councils in Torbay and Windsor & Maidenhead;
• a single authority on the existing boundaries of Newcastle and the adjoining Staffordshire Moorlands, which would be larger than the Telford & Wrekin unitary authority;
• a ‘West Staffordshire’ single authority broadly based on the M6 corridor.

However, the report makes clear it does not favour a North Staffordshire Unitary Authority combining the Staffordshire Moorlands and Stoke-on-Trent, nor does it currently support a proposal along the lines of the existing Staffordshire County Council footprint.

It also suggests that a solution to Stoke-on-Trent’s financial problems may be a return to the pre-1997 situation and reintegrate the delivery of complex services such as education, highways, child protection and adult social care back into Staffordshire County Council, which is in a stable financial position, requiring no need for forced reorganisation.

Simon Tagg said:

Our minds are not closed. What we are doing is evaluating all the proposals and we will keep looking at the evidence about what is best for residents until the November deadline for final submissions."

The Borough Council is positive towards the creation of a Strategic Authority spanning Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, and which could include neighbouring areas if there are good arguments for their inclusion.

Simon Tagg added:

There are two separate issues here. We think the creation of a Strategic Authority looking at transport, investment, infrastructure and how we integrate climate change and sustainability for the whole region has merit, because it has potential to bring powers and funding from London.
 

Clearly the case for the Strategic Authority to have an Elected Mayor has not been made, and given experiences of elected mayors locally, would not be seen as a necessary or positive step.
 

However, Strategic Authorities will not be responsible for delivering day-to-day services such as collecting the bins and at a local level there is no demand - and no convincing argument - to rip up the existing system of local government in favour of giving residents something less than they already have.”