Agenda item

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 would help to facilitate a local connection with communities.

b.     A single unitary authority was felt to be an appropriate body that would have the capacity to accept devolved powers and resources if they were passed down from the Government.

c.     The business case showed that the single unitary authority proposal combined strategic capability through its size and local representation through the area assemblies. It offered value for money, met the Government’s criteria for LGR, reflected the uniqueness of Kent, and had significantly less disaggregation complications than any other proposal.  

d.     There could be some efficiencies generated from having multiple departments working together under one authority, however, there was already very close partnership working.  These efficiencies were difficult to quantify at this stage because the joint working policies and strategies of the new authority were not in place.

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

a.     The figures included in the report did not make any assumptions about the findings of the Fair Funding Review 2.0.   Once the information was available for the existing authorities, the models could then be applied to the different proposals.

b.     The ability of the authorities to service their debt was more important than the amount of debt each held.  The costs of the LGR transition and the servicing of existing debts would need to be met through existing budgets and reserves.  No additional money was expected from the Government to fund transition costs. 

c.     The Government’s devolution policy was clear, however, there was no timetable for further rounds of devolution for two-tier areas. 

d.     No modelling had been undertaken to establish exactly how many Councillors would be needed for any of the proposals.

e.     There would be a need for any new unitary authority to harmonise council tax charges within eight years.

f.      There were currently 658 councillors across Kent and Medway; combined, they received around £5.1million in basic allowances each year.  The single unitary authority proposal used an indicative basic allowance rate for councillors of £23,000, totalling around £2.7million per year, however it would be for the new authority to agree and set the remuneration rates for its Councillors.

g.     The business case acknowledged that the Councillors would have a larger role.  There would be a need for enhanced support arrangements to help manage workloads, such as support staff and the usage of technology to maximise efficiency.

h.     The indicated cost savings were felt to be reasonable and achievable.  The implementation plan would provide more details around the costings and savings that could be expected.

i.       Some shared service arrangements could be put in place across multiple unitary authorities which may help to reduce cost and disruption if the devolution process was initiated. This would be a decision for any new authority to make.   

j.       Time scales remained tight and work would continue to prepare for the next steps with the 13 partner authorities, without prejudging the Government’s decision.

6.     RESOLVED that the Cabinet Committee note proposed decision to approve and submit KCC’s Strategic Business Case for Local Government Reorganisation in Kent and Medway