Agenda item

1. The Leader introduced the item, which provided an update on national developments relating to Local Government Re?organisation (LGR) since the previous meeting of the Committee. The report covered some of the Government decisions from the Devolution Priority Programme (DPP) areas, learning from these decisions, and the implications for Kent and Medway. 

2. Mr Thomas presented the report and covered the following points: 

a.    Since the last Committee meeting, ministerial decisions had been announced for four DPP areas: Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. The report included a summary table setting out the outcomes of these decisions and other relevant contextual information. 

b.    The Secretary of State had advised that the DPP decisions did not set precedents for non?priority areas, however several consistent themes had emerged including; a flexible application of the guidance regarding number of people residing within each new unitary, and ability to incorporate modifications to the existing electoral boundaries that was previously indicated undesirable.

c.     The Government’s assessment criteria appeared to include considerations relating to economic growth, housing delivery and local identity. However, detailed information on how these criteria were being weighted was currently unavailable. 

d.    The Government had confirmed a minimum level of funding for each new unitary authority, and the Kent and Medway councils had agreed local arrangements for administering this funding collectively. 

e.    The Structural Change Orders (SCOs) for DPP areas were expected to be issued after the Government’s summer recess, this represented a delay from previous timescales but the intended end date for the process remained unchanged. 

f.      Joint committees would comprise of equal representation from any existing unitary councils, and from the county and district councils. 

g.    Councils were expected to use existing powers to establish community engagement structures such as area or neighbourhood committees, and Councils were required to engage with Town and Parish Councils. 

3. The following points arose from Members’ comments and questions: 

a.    None of the options achieved a majority of support across the Kent and Medway Councils. Despite this, the Councils continued to work closely together to prepare for LGR.  This preparation work took place without pre-determining the Government’s decision and was needed to enable the Council’s to act in line with the Government’s implementation timeline.    

b.    LGR was a government directed process, it would be irresponsible for the Council not to take steps to prepare. Preparatory activity was proportionate, phased and flexible, undertaken in accordance with normal governance processes and best value duties. 

c.     The Council had provided feedback to the Government in support of Option 1a. 

d.    Service delivery would continue as usual during the transition period, and councils were expected to act in the spirit of the anticipated statutory controls while maintaining operational stability. 

e.    Members could be provided with a breakdown of which option had been chosen by Government for progression in areas where a decision had been made. This could include which political party led the council that had submitted the option. 

f.      Further information regarding the constitution of joint committees would be brought before the Committee at a future date.  

g.    The Council’s External Auditors, Grant Thornton, produced a report on the impact of LRG that could be shared with Members.  

4. RESOLVED that the Committee note the update on Local Government Re?organisation.