Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Mr Hood who was substituted by Mr Sole.

There was a general declaration of interest noted from all Committee Members who were also District, City or Brough Councillors, namely; Mr Brown, Mr Sole, Mr Ellis, Mr Hood and Mr Brady. 

RESOLVED that the minutes be signed by the Chair as a correct record of the meeting.

1. Mr Wagner presented the report, during which he made the following key points: 

a.     The results of the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) Residents Survey would be shared with the other 13 Kent and Medway Authorities. 

b.     The final results aligned with the findings of the partial results that were before the Committee. 

c.     The executive summary provided an overview of the findings that were grouped into the following four headings: 

·       Options on LGR and council size,  

·       Belonging and connections,  

·       What residents want, 

·       Views on cost implications.  

2. The following comments were made by the Committee during consideration of the item: 

a.     The survey could have been an opportunity to assess public appetite for devolution in Kent.  

b.     The inter-district connections matrix indicated that option 1a would draw some communities don't feel a strong connection to each other.  

c.     It was a shame that more young people had not engaged with the survey as they would be the ones most affected by LGR in the long term.  

3. The administration provided the following responses to questions raised: 

a.     The Kent Leaders had commissioned a survey, however KCC conducted its own survey to gather responses about finances and council tax.  

b.     Only 32% of respondents disagreed that minimising council tax increases should be the most important consideration. 

4. The Officers provided the following responses to questions raised: 

a.     The survey did not include questions relating to devolution because there was not a timetable or plans for devolution in Kent at this time.  The intention was for the survey to focus specifically on LGR.  

b.     Option 1a would not be compliant with the Government’s devolution policy position which required multiple authorities to come together.  The Council would need to seek devolution powers through a different means. 

c.     The sample size generated a margin of error of around 3 percent.  

d.     The number of respondents compared well to other KCC surveys.  

5. RESOLVED that the Cabinet Committee note the views expressed by the respondents of the survey, and that they will be included in KCC’s final business case to Government. 

1.     Mr Whittle presented the report, during which he made the following key points:

a.   Thanks were offered to everyone involved in preparing the business case in such a short time scale.

b.   The Secretary of State indicated that all proposals should have a shared evidence base to allow for easier comparison between the options.  This has been achieved in Kent and Medway but has not always been achieved elsewhere in the Country.

c.   Kent County Council (KCC) decided to develop its business case internally because the Council wished to approach the task from a different angle to the other 13 authorities.

d.   The business case was not designed to be an implementation plan or act as an operating model for a new council.  It was intended to allow the proposal to be compared against the other proposals.

e.   The Government would ultimately decide how LGR would take place within Kent.  

2.     The Chair permitted Mr Jeffery to address the Committee about the item.  During his address he wished for more information on why an option was being proposed that did not meet the Government’s requirements for devolution.

3.     The following comments were made by the Committee during consideration of the item:

a.     The proposal to have a single unitary authority was not compatible with the current requirements for devolution.

b.     The current KCC model has seen levels of debt increase, it seems that a single unitary authority might continue along this path of increasing costs. A different approach was needed.

c.     Area assemblies were not legally constituted and could be disbanded by the unitary authority.  Decision making ultimately remained with the unitary authority.

d.     118 Councillors may not be sufficient to adequately represent residents. 

e.     The workload would be significant for the Councillors as it would include both Country and District Council matters.  The £23,000 allowance would be insufficient to allow Councillors to work full time on the role.  Councillors were more likely to be older and retired or semi-retired which would make them less representative of their constituents.

f.      It would be more difficult for independent candidates to successfully stand due to the logistics of canvassing a large area.

g.     The proposal put forward showed that there would be cost savings in the future.

h.     It was possible that the Fair funding Review 2.0 could be less generous for rural areas, this could result in a less of funding for Kent.

i.       The risks and costs of disaggregation of services increases as the number of unitary authorities increases. 

j.       Multiple small unitary authorities were unlike to achieve service cost savings if they could not already be achieved by KCC at a county scale.

k.     The proposal would create a democratic deficit with less people making decisions for more people.

l.       There was no indication of how enhanced community engagement would take place.

4.     The administration provided the following responses to question raised:

a.     Although the proposal did not meet the Government’s current requirements for devolution, the area assemblies  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

1. Mr Woolmer presented the report and advised that after the submission, the Kent Leaders would continue to work together to prepare for the Government’s decision and the actions that would need to be taken afterwards.   

2. The following comments were made by the Committee during consideration of the item: 

a.     The proposal of a single unitary model did not seem to align with the intentions of LGR. 

b.     To submit a proposal that did not have support from any of the other 13 authorities would be a unilateral action that could not be described as collaborative working. 

3. The administration provided the following responses to questions raised: 

a.     The administration did not feel that LGR was necessarily required for Kent, however Option 1a was the best option for the people and business in Kent.  

b.     A number of the Authorities would also be submitting the proposal that they felt was the best for their residents.  None of the options had universal support from all 14 Kent and Medway Authorities.   

c.     Some of KCC’s partners felt that a single unitary would be best for the area.  

4. RESOLVED that the Cabinet Committee note the continued collaborative working between all 14 Councils in Kent and Medway, the progress made on the business case development and the commitment to continue working closely together up to 28 November 2025 submission date and beyond

1.     RESOLVED to note the work programme.