Agenda item

To consider an update on the final submission to government on local government reorganisation proposals.

Ahead of the Special Council and Cabinet meeting agenda and report publications, a link to the ‘Case for Change’ and appendices, developed by NFDC and 11 other local authorities in Hampshire and the Solent, can be found at the following link:-

Local government reorganisation proposal - 'Close enough to be local, big enough to be strong' - New Forest District Council

The Panel received an update on the final proposals for Local Government Reorganisation.

A member felt that the role of Town and Parish Councils would need strong governance to support their future roles, alongside warding arrangements and Councillor numbers.  It was confirmed that the information which was submitted as part of the case for change was high level and was around how many councillors  overall the new Council would require.  The option 1 appendix was based on using the Hampshire County divisions and it was recognised that some form of existing governance would be required, with the Boundary Commission undertaking a review in the first terms of office of the new Councils.  Option 1 was based around a 93 Councillor size.  Conversations had also taken place to understand the role that Town and Parish Councils currently undertook and how they worked with other authorities. Another member expressed concern at the proposed number of councillors and the increase in associated casework.

Concern was also raised by a member that a large proportion of the pubic were still unaware of local government reorganisation and asked what was being done to communicate the forthcoming changes, to the public.  In response, it was recognised that not everyone was digitally enabled.  The Council’s approach was that when there was a requirement for residents to take part in a consultation then the Council would work really hard to communicate the need, so the public could have their say.  Communication would be stepped up again at the next stage of consultation.

It was confirmed that new models of frontline services, following local government reorganisation, were currently being worked upon although any final decision on a model would be undertaken by the new Council.  It was reiterated that the Council didn’t want to see any reductions or cuts in services although there would be clear advantages for a single, unitary layer.  However, there would also be disadvantages in being a further step removed from the community. 

Another member asked how much reliance could be put on the response to Option 1 and it was confirmed that the response figure was above the benchmark and that the responses were therefore reliable.  As a District, New Forest attracted nearly as many responses as Hampshire County Council. 

Concern was raised regarding local services and how the new Council would manage on a larger scale especially as financial savings were predicted.  In response, it was stated that context was important and that the combined spend across the Hampshire area on an annual basis was just under £3.5bn.  With an estimated £64m saving annually from local government reorganisation, it was less than 2% of the annual spend.  There were clear differences in the estimations between cases and the joint case which the Council had worked upon involved good oversight and engagement in the process with a reliance on KPMG, as the experts.  MHCLG would be interrogating the assumptions which had been made on the same base data and the different outcomes.  The Panel were also reminded that this was a business case regarding local government reorganisation and wasn’t building a budget for the new Council. 

It was also confirmed that the complexity of boundary changes would be an issue and the local MPs were supporting the Council’s case.  Baroness Taylor had recently visited the District and that provided an opportunity to put forward the case for the New Forest.  It was also confirmed that other representatives from central government would also be visiting the New Forest in the near future.

The Panel also felt that it was important to remember the impact on staff and the emphasis on efficiency could lead to a high staff turnover. 

RESOLVED:

That the report was noted