Agenda item

To receive a verbal update from the Managing Director and Head of Paid Service.

The Managing Director gave an update on the latest position regarding Local Government Reorganisation, following previous reports to Council in January and March 2025. A brief background to the matter was provided and then the Managing Director gave an overview of the interim plans that had been submitted to the Government in March 2025. The feedback on the interim plan submissions had now been received. The interim plan feedback: Derbyshire and Derby had been circulated to all members, along with a summary of the feedback.

Two interim proposals had been submitted to Government.  These were the Derbyshire County Council proposal, which was for two unitary councils, with Derby City remaining as it was with a population of approximately 266,000, and the rest of Derbyshire with a population of approximately 811,000.  This proposal did not have the support of any other authority in Derbyshire.  The other proposal, put forward by the District, Borough and City Councils, was for two unitary councils but with populations closer to the guidance of 500,000. Amber Valley Borough Council had also submitted an outline proposal for a three-unitary option, but since further work had taken place, this proposal was unlikely to be pursued by Amber Valley. Derby City Council had written a letter of support for the two unitary option proposed by the District and Boroughs, but were at the time unable to be a signatory on the proposal.

It was noted that the feedback received was single feedback on all the proposals that had been submitted.  The Managing Director gave a summary of the feedback.

In terms of next steps, the District and Boroughs would continue to work on the two-unitary proposal (north and south), with further work on whether Amber Valley would be placed in the north, south or split.  A programme structure had been created by the district and boroughs to work up a full business case to be submitted by the 28 November 2025 deadline. It was anticipated that a decision would be made by Spring 2026, with a vesting date for the new authorities of May 2028.

Councillor N Barker reported that it was not easy work and the timescales were tight.  He praised the Managing Director, Director of Growth and Assets, and Director of Finance and Resources for their work and attitude towards this project.

Councillor A Dale asked if potentially splitting the Borough of Amber Valley would cause delays and also how the £7.6m was being spent. He also commented about the shadow elections, which may take place in 2027.  The Managing Director reported that current district and borough areas could be split, but yes it would take longer.  Further information on the funding was still awaited but it would be for the development of a business case and associated costs.  There was no further information on shadow elections as yet.

In response to a question from Councillor H Wetherall, the Managing Director clarified that the proposal needed to cover the whole of the County.

Councillor M Thacker MBE spoke about the historical and geographically considerations, as well as the civic and mayoral elements.  He stated that there was precedent for education being managed at second tier and he raised concern about SEND services and provided examples of unitary councils working together in partnership for such services.  Councillor Thacker concluded that he preferred the current model of local government but if that could not be kept the north and south option was the next best thing.

Councillor D Hancock echoed what Councillor M Thacker MBE had said.  He spoke about the costs involved and the need to be realistic with the costings in any proposal.

Councillor N Barker responded that the costs had to be based on realistic figures, and that work was taking place to look at the costs of those councils that had already gone through reorganisation.  This was setting up an organisation that would last for over 50 years and it should be done right.

The Director of Finance and Resources stated that it should not be rushed but that the November deadline meant there would have to be an element of assumptions in the proposals.  Officers were working hard behind the scenes, including all the Section 151 officers to get as much information together.  It was noted that there would still be pressures in respect of social care, SEND and homelessness and to expect these pressures to dissipate within three years of setting up new unitary councils was unrealistic.

Councillor A Dale stated that if the money made in efficiencies could be put back into other council services it might help but if the cost of local government was being re-baselined then the impact needed to be made clear.

The Director of Finance and Resources responded that any savings needed to be very carefully stated.  The Managing Director added that this was why it was much better to be at the table and be involved as officers had been emphasising similar points regarding savings and the need to take time and get this right.