To note any requests to speak on any item on the agenda in accordance with the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme (see note at end of the agenda).
Minutes:
The Chairman welcomed speakers to the meeting and advised that he was exercising his discretion to allow speeches up to 10 minutes.
Councillor George Cowcher – Deputy Leader, Stratford-on-Avon District Council
Councillor Cowcher noted that councillors across the county were faced with the proposition of creating something new for Warwickshire and Stratford-on-Avon councillors believed it was important to work together on the future arrangements. Whether the result was one new unitary council or more than one it was going to be a new council and not a development of either the County Council or any of the Districts and, therefore, everybody needed to play a part.
Councillor Cowcher made the point that the White Paper had two strands: local government reform and the strategic authority that the county would be working with for the future. He considered that the two were interlinked and could not be dealt with separately or sequentially and it was important that consideration of any strategic alignment sought the best fit for the people of Warwickshire. If the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) was not an option, other options needed to be explored and this would have implications for whether there was a preference for one or two unitary authorities in the county since the south of the county would have little in common with those authority areas adjacent to North Warwickshire and vice versa. It was important, therefore, to be clear that there was more than one option to consider for local government reform and vital to have an understanding of the arrangements for a strategic authority.
Councillor Cowcher emphasised that proposals should take account of how each council’s assets and resources were accounted for. For example, he noted that Stratford-on-Avon District Council had sold its housing stock some years ago and as a result there were cash balances. This was money that had been contributed by council taxpayers in the District and it was important that the funding was ringfenced for people in Stratford and was not dispersed across the whole of the county. It was also one of the reasons why the District Council had been able to build positive relationships with town and parish councils and he recognised their importance in a rural district.
Finally, Councillor Cowcher noted that the county council elections would take place in May 2025. The legacy left behind for the new council was important and should not be unworkable. It was, therefore, the view of the District Council that the proposal to be submitted by the end of March needed to present at least two options, one of which was two new unitary authorities: one for South Warwickshire and one for North Warwickshire.
Councillor Ian Davison – Leader, Warwick District Council
Councillor Davison thanked Councillor Isobel Seccombe, Leader, and Monica Fogarty, Chief Executive, for meeting with the Chief Executives and Leaders of the five District and Borough Council in the previous week. He explained the meeting had proposed working together to gather evidence from multiple angles on the pros and cons of different unitary models, of which the viable options appeared to be a Warwickshire-wide unitary authority or a North Warwickshire unitary authority alongside a South Warwickshire one.
He noted that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) had confirmed that, with elections due to take place in May, the new administration would not be bound by the current one and, therefore, decisions reached at this meeting would be open to change.
Councillor Davison asked the meeting to give thought to the most important considerations for the choices presented by reform. He noted that many questioned the government’s wisdom of accelerating the simultaneous creation of strategic authorities across England and the unitarisation of county, district and borough councils. He considered the government was embarking on years of implementation chaos, while local councils were spending considerable sums on adult and child social care, special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), home to school transport, homelessness, etc. Those services accounted for around 70 percent of
combined budgets and, while optimistic assumptions might hope to make savings from unitarisation, this was perhaps looking in the wrong direction for change. Whilst reform may not be welcomed by all, central government was committed to creating unitary authorities and this was now the choice.
As Councillor Cowcher had stated, a major complexity in the choice was that the new unitary authorities needed to help unlock devolution, being the goal of the White Paper, which required universal coverage in England by
strategic authorities. This was complex in the local context with several possible permutations but in terms of economic geography, Warwickshire should sit in a strategic authority with Coventry, whether that was inside or outside the WMCA. If that was possible, a single Warwickshire unitary might work, although the north and south would have the advantage of having populations about the same size as Coventry and Solihull. Alternative possibilities for strategic authorities included south Warwickshire joining a strategic authority with Oxfordshire or Worcestershire, while north Warwickshire could form a strategic authority with Staffordshire or Leicestershire. It was important that there was genuine consultation with residents and that those residents were presented with a real choice.
In conclusion, Councillor Davison asked Warwickshire County Council to work with the district and borough councils to agree what evidence should be considered in preparing the proposals. This may include the importance of economic geography, finance, residents’ sense of identity and their trust in local government, and how likely non-statutory services like swimming pools and parks were to be cut.
Councillor Ish Mistry – Deputy Leader of Rugby Borough Council
Councillor Mistry read a statement from Councillor Michael Moran, the Leader of Rugby Borough Council. The statement noted that the government's English devolution White Paper was published on 16 December 2024 and included the government's intention to facilitate a programme of local government reorganisation for a two-tier area. On 5 February 2025, the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution, had written to the six Warwickshire Councils inviting them to work collaboratively to develop a proposal for local government reorganization. Subsequent briefing by government officials had clarified the intent and time scale regarding the local government reorganization. A special meeting of Rugby Borough Council had been convened on 26 February 2025 to consider the matter. As such, the statement represented the view of the Leader and Cabinet of Rugby Borough Council only.
The statement went on to say that in response to the English Devolution White Paper, and determining the future structures for local government in Warwickshire, Rugby Borough Council’s administration considered it imperative that the interests of residents, businesses and communities remained the sole driver for more streamlined and cost effective services,
enabling the achievement of efficiency and better outcomes for communities. The administration recognised the specific challenges faced by Rugby Borough Council while uncertainty regarding local government restructuring remained, including but not limited to those relating to the Council's workforce, joint work with partners out in the community, resident understanding of the local government landscape, and the deliverability of corporate priorities which required long-term investment. Given these challenges, the administration understood the need to act positively
and to collaborate and co-produce with all partners at the earliest opportunity, with the intent being absolute clarity and collective
discussion of the creation of a new joint authority and not a takeover by Warwickshire County Council, a viewpoint which had been unhelpfully portrayed in the media.
In moving forward, the administration considered it imperative that due consideration was given to maintaining a genuine connection within all distinct communities, for example, by the new unitary authority having a physical presence in the major towns throughout the county, by ensuring that the new unitary authority had well thought out plans for engaging
and involving communities and by ensuring that the role of the local council (including parish and town councils) was fully considered.
The recent commencement of discussions between the leaders and the chief executives of all six councils was welcomed. Honest, respectful, and open engagement in such discussion was essential to enable the Councils to cooperate and create an Interim Plan. The deadline for this (21 March 2025) and the deadline for the proposal (26 November 2025) was very tight.
Finally, the statement noted that the White Paper set out a clear vision to deliver devolution and local government reorganisation at pace and presented a significant opportunity for all areas to proactively self-determine the future structure of local government in Warwickshire to deliver a better outcome for all residents. If delivered effectively, this opportunity could directly benefit the residents and businesses of Rugby and Warwickshire.
Keith Kondakor
Mr Kondakor expressed the view that it was not a good time to hurry into local government reform and cautioned against making mistakes through rushing.
He stated that whilst the devolution of power to appropriate levels and giving power to communities was welcomed, the proposals seemed to be doing the opposite, with decision-making powers and jobs moved away from local districts upwards to a unitary authority. The borough where he lived (Nuneaton and Bedworth) had serious need for improvement but he was not supportive of moving its powers 20 miles south and this would not necessarily solve the problems in any event. He cited what he considered to be poor decision making at Warwickshire County Council - the Bermuda Bridge project, building at Top Farm, changes to the Fire Service – as examples of decisions being ‘done to’ the local area which he considered had not been of benefit, and demonstrated that the local area did not have a strong enough voice. Mr Kondakor noted that smaller projects were also difficult to get off the ground, giving the example of a bus stop he was trying to have sited locally and he considered this would be even more difficult to achieve if there was a single, bigger local authority to deal with. In his view, there needed to be better options on the table.
Mr Kondakor stated that the proposal for two unitary local authorities should be considered. However, if this was the preferred option, there would need to be shared services to be economically viable as services like highways needed to be delivered on a reasonably sized contract. He also extolled the virtues of having a Waste Authority that merged activities across Coventry and Warwickshire (including the districts and boroughs).
He stated that consideration would also need to be given to the where the boundaries would be drawn. For instance, he questioned if Hinkley and Bosworth could form part of a North Warwickshire Council, or if The Cotswolds could join a South Warwickshire conglomeration. However, in his view, consideration should be given to other models, eg working towards a London-style of government where a strategic authority existed alongside well-funded local councils. This made a big difference to democracy with local councils providing local services and a strategic authority providing the bigger picture. In terms of the government’s proposals for the creation of authorities with populations of 500,000 or more, having a strategic authority and unitary authority/authorities made sense. He considered that if this two tier style was supported in London, then it could be implemented elsewhere. He stated that the main issue was for the model to enhance local democracy at town and village levels and to keep decision-making and jobs and services local where possible.
Mr Kondakor noted that important services were delivered locally, such as Council Housing. In Nuneaton and Bedworth, there were 5,000 council homes and the new model would need to consider how those services would continue to be delivered. It would also be important to consider the role of civic pride and how decisions on planning could be made locally.
He urged the Council to look at the options and seek a flexible solution that preserved the best parts of local government and retained enough local councillors at different levels to serve their communities. Reflecting on his own experience, he understood the roles of both borough councillor and county councillor and the public service that was provided.
Councillor Alan Boad, Warwick District Council
Councillor Boad welcomed the government’s decision to allow elections in Warwickshire to continue on 1 May 2025 and give the local councils a further eight weeks to submit an interim plan for reorganisation of local government. The proposals reached in that period would reshape local government to a form that would, in all likelihood, last another 50 years. It was also eight weeks to create a strategic authority, most likely led by an elected mayor, or to try to join another one.
He was of the view that the proposals should be jointly developed by an all-party group of councillors from the existing councils and no council should feel ‘done to’ by another since all six councils would be abolished. However, the timescales were tight and therefore some agreed principles were needed.
Since there was a requirement to work with neighbouring authorities to identify the best solutions for the area, the County Council had to work as an equal partner, collaboratively with the districts and boroughs to arrive
At an agreed reorganisation proposal. It was also understood that the consultation was required at pace to meet the government's timeline,
requiring the submission of an interim plan before 21 March 2025 and the full proposals for reorganisation by 28 November 2025. Warwick District Council believed that the consultations must start by answering three key questions:
Councillor Boad noted that these should not be party political matters and he supported the approach agreed at meetings of Warwick District Council and Stratford-on-Avon District Council to work on a cross-party basis and with other local councils to find the best outcome for Warwickshire's residents.
The Chairman noted that a written submission had been received from Councillor Christopher Watkins, Leader of Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council which he read out as follows:
“As the Leader of Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council, I
want to make it known, as I have done many times already –
that I support both the principle of devolution and of local
government reform. This Government’s policy gives a
clear opportunity to both my Borough and the whole of Warwickshire,
to transform outcomes for our residents, businesses, and
visitors.
Equally I am pleased that Government rejected Warwickshire’s request to join the priority programme. In partnership with my fellow District and Borough Leaders, I made clear representations to Government; to give Warwickshire the time to undertake this work.
This time has been afforded, and on this basis, I call to all Councils around Warwickshire to come together to explore all the options available. At the forefront of my mind is the recognition for the communities, culture and senses of places that form up our County, and we owe it to them to strive for the best model possible, putting our communities at the forefront.
I hope, that in compliment with all Local Government organisations in Warwickshire, the various options can be duly explored, to establish the right outcome for all residents of Warwickshire.”