Agenda and minutes

Mr Harrison was nominated by the Leader to be the Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Chair.

RESOLVED that Mr Harrison be the Chair of the Committee.  

Mr Bradshaw proposed, and Ms Williams seconded that Mrs Emberson be elected as Vice-Chair of the Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee. There were no further nominations.

RESOLVED that Mrs Emberson be Vice-Chair of the Committee.  

Apologies were received from Mr Hook who was substituted by Mr Sole, Mr Ellis who was substituted by Mr Samme, Mr Lehmann who was substituted by Mr Hood, Miss Randall who was substituted by Miss Kemp and Mr Black who was substituted by Mrs Fothergill.

Mr Rayner declared an interest in item 5, KCC options appraisal and criteria assessment of current Local Government Reorganisation options, as he represented Kent County Council on the Kent Association of Local Councils. 

There was a general declaration of interest noted from all Committee Members who were also Parish, District, City or Brough Councillors in relation to item 5 on the agenda.

Mrs Kemkaran (Leader of the Council) introduced the item, during which she highlighted the importance of the Cabinet Committee in considering these changes that would have a profound impact upon the County.

Mr Whittle, Ms Dixon-Sherreard and Mr Woolmer presented the report, during which they made the following key points:

·       28 November 2025 was the deadline for the submission of the local government re-organisation (LGR) proposals to the Government. 

·       The deadline placed Kent County Council (KCC) under significant time pressure.  Additionally, the timetable to meet future key milestones that included statutory consultation in 2026, shadow unitary elections in 2027, and to go live in April 2028, was also very challenging.

·       There was a joint process underway to develop an evidence base and business cases for the Kent and Medway councils.   Each of the councils would be required to submit a business case to the Government by the 28 November deadline.

·       An external consultant would be used to prepare the business cases, and it was expected that the options appraisal would be completed towards the beginning of September.

·       The report before the Committee detailed several important caveats to its findings, and it intentionally did not suggest a preferred option.

The following points and comments were made by Members during consideration of the item:

·       Most residents did not know anything about LGR. 

·       Residents should be given assurance that they would be fully consulted on proposals at the appropriate time.

·       It was important to include parish councils in the process. 

·       Government should be asked to confirm when Kent would be eligible to begin the devolution process as this could impact upon the business plan for LGR, and would be an important consideration when planning for the future.

·       Some felt that elements of the assessment published in the pack were indicative of subjective scoring.  

·       Members discussed whether the fair funding review may favour Northern and Metropolitan Councils over those in the South-East, and this should be kept in mind when considering the future of Kent.

·       Some of the financial information relating to the debts and asset of the councils was not yet available, this made it difficult for Members to see the full picture.

·       The report contained a lot of assumptions. 

·       The report could have gone into more detail about the advantages to be gained from devolution and LGR for Kent. 

·       The option that had the lowest number of residents for each elected member was option four, this could be seen as the option with the highest level of democratic representation.  As the number of unitary authorities reduced, the number of residents that each elected member would represent increased.  

·       There was a concern that without a single Strategic Kent Authority, some parts of Kent would be set up with higher levels of debt or higher service burdens than others. 

The Leader and Officers responded with the following points in relation to comments made by Members:

• The Government would lead a consultation exercise following receipt of the business cases.  Additionally, KCC considered a number  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.