Agenda item

Executive Summary	The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) wrote to all Norfolk Leaders on 5 February 2025 inviting them to work with other council leaders in the area to develop a proposal for Local Government Reorganisation. The letter sets out the criteria for new unitary councils and what is expected to be received in the interim plan to be submitted by 21st March 2025. This report sets out the interim plan and requests Council to indicate a preference order for the options outlined moving forward.
Options considered	The preparation of the interim plan prepared by the district councils in Norfolk considered one, two or three possible unitary authority models for the County and concluded that a three unitary model would best meet the criteria moving forward.
Consultation(s)	NNDC member briefing – 11th February 2025 Town and Parish Council briefings held on 18th and 25th February 2025
Recommendations	Council expresses its view that it disagrees with the Government’s proposals to introduce a unitary local government structure in Norfolk; as it is not convinced that such an arrangement will best meet the needs of the district’s rural communities and residents or deliver the savings and efficiencies anticipated. Accepting, however, that this is the position of Government as detailed in the English Devolution White Paper, the Council strongly objects to proposals being suggested for a single unitary authority covering the whole of Norfolk in that it will be of a very large scale in terms of area and population served, will not be able to reflect the distinct communities of place and interest which exist across the county, and not meet the definition of “local” government in understanding local places or in providing services tailored to meet local needs. The Council therefore strongly supports proposals for a three unitary council model for Norfolk in the future as the basis of the interim plan to be submitted to Government.  The Council believes that such an arrangement would best meet the six key criteria laid out by Government and would see one authority based on the urban area of Norwich; an authority covering the West of the county with a strong agricultural and agri-tech economy and an East authority with a key focus on clean energy and tourism. Council therefore agrees that its response to Government regarding local government reorganisation in Norfolk to be submitted by 21st March 2025 makes reference to an Interim Plan proposing three unitary councils in Norfolk as detailed at Appendix 3 with the submission of the response to be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council.
Reasons for recommendations	To respond constructively to the Government’s invitation to local authorities in Norfolk to put forward proposals for a unitary council local government structure which seeks to promote and protect the interests of North Norfolk’s residents, communities and businesses in the context of new council structures and complements proposals for a Norfolk and Suffolk Mayoral Combined Authority.
Background papers	Appendix A – MHCLG letter of 5th February 2025 Appendix B – Deloitte report Appendix C – draft Interim Plan prepared by the Norfolk district councils.

 

 

Wards affected	All
Cabinet member(s)	Cllr T Adams, Leader of the Council
Contact Officer	Steve Blatch, Chief Executive, steve.blatch@north-norfolk.gov.uk

 

The Chair invited the Leader, Cllr Adams, to introduce this item. He set out the background to Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) explaining that On 16^th December 2024, the Government published its English Devolution White Paper which stated that in areas of the country with a two-tier local government structure of county and district, borough and city councils there would be a move towards establishing a unitary structure of local government for the future. The Government confirmed that it would facilitate a programme of LGR for the 21 remaining two-tier county areas, creating larger unitary authorities.  The expectation was that all areas should develop locally-led proposals for reorganisation with existing councils working together to identify the best option for their area. These plans should complement devolution, rather than delay it, whilst avoiding scenarios where competing proposals are developed within a given geography.

 

On 5^th February it was announced that Norfolk and Suffolk were to be included on the Devolution Priority Programme (DPP) and an initial deadline of 21^st March was set as the deadline for submission of interim proposals. Consequently, the seven districts had commissioned Deloitte, to prepare an evidence-based report evaluating possible unitary council models for Norfolk which was used to inform the development of the interim plan to be submitted to Government. The Councils had all convened meetings to support an agreed response in time for the deadline.

 

Cllr Adams said that he had concerns about the LGR agenda. He did support the creation of a greater Norwich Unitary. It would support the housing growth agenda and enable the rest of the County to benefit from that growth and accompanying public transport infrastructure. However, for North Norfolk in particular, he said that he saw more risk than reward in the LGR proposals. North Norfolk and the Broads were attractive to tourists and there was ‘brand recognition’ associated with both – nationally and even globally. NNDC played a significant role in the local economy through an extensive public realm portfolio – including the pier, country parks and public toilets. There was also a lot of additional support for local businesses, leisure facilities and arts and culture. The Government’s position towards such assets was at best vague and potentially ruinous. Consequently, he could not support their agenda as it currently stood. He acknowledged that, in reality, there was not alternative to the unitary route but said that a three unitary model would be preferable to a single one. The geographic area of a single authority would cover an area equivalent to 20 times that of Birmingham and the cost of implementing LGR would be substantial and the ongoing costs would also be significant.

 

In conclusion, he said that he reluctantly supported the three unitary model as it offered the best possible arrangement.  It would be the solution best able to represent large geographic areas. He referred members to the Deloitte report which had considered a one, two or three unitary council structure for Norfolk against the key criteria laid out by the Government and concluded that a three unitary model scored most strongly across all six criteria.

 

He acknowledged that there would be concerns about proposals to ‘split’ North Norfolk but the District Council would not exist after LGR was completed but members should also bear in mind that there was a long way to go regarding discussions and he was hopeful that the bulk of the district would be included in one of the unitary authorities.

 

The seconder of the motion, Cllr W Fredericks reserved her right to speak.

 

The Chair opened the debate:

 

Cllr C Cushing said that as for the previous agenda item, the Conservative group would abstain from voting on this. He said that the timeframe of 4 weeks imposed by the Government was just too tight for such a complex issue. He acknowledged that it would be happening regardless. Cllr Cushing said that he did believe that there could be some rationalisation of the existing seven district councils but did not necessarily agree that the unitary model was the best structure going forward. He added that he did have some concerns about the Deloitte report and felt that there were some gaps – such as a proposal for a model that didn’t include consultation with the County Council (NCC). He felt that this wasn’t practical and it was imperative to have ongoing discussions with NCC to ensure full engagement. He also had some concerns about the scoring applied to the six criteria set out by the Government. It was clear that some had considerable more weight than others – such as driving efficiencies in local government and financial sustainability for councils. Members could not support a three unitary model if this was considered to be a crucial aspect of any future model. There was little doubt that a single unitary council would be more financially sustainable and this was imperative if key services were to be delivered for residents. The report did not set out the benefits of each model either.

 

Cllr Cushing said that consideration must be given to the resourcing requirements of three unitaries. Finding good, qualified staff would be a challenge. In conclusion, he said that the proposals for both the two and three unitary models, the western side would effectively be the ‘poor relation’ with the East being the financial ‘powerhouse’ and again, he questioned the financial sustainability of these proposals. He reiterated Cllr Withington’s earlier comments that it was crucial to get it right and as things currently stood, he flet he could not support any of the options that were being proposed.

 

Cllr T FitzPatrick said that this was the start of the biggest shake-up of local government for 50 years and although he personally felt that the elected leader model would have been the best, that opportunity had now passed and the current model had gone past its ‘sell by date’ and change was needed. He agreed that egos should be set aside and members should ask themselves what was best for their local area and for Norfolk as a whole. Everyone should focus on working together and do their best for residents and most people didn’t fully understand which council ran which service – they just wanted a good service. He added that devolution offered the chance for local areas to take over the responsibilities of some of the ‘quangos’ that the government was seeking to abolish. He wasn’t convinced that a three unitary model was the best solution as it would result in three disparate and unequal areas, with Norwich being separated from its natural hinterland and each area would have different ‘clout’ in terms of finance. It was possible that those areas outside of Norwich would be seen as too rural and could fall behind. In conclusion, he said that he did not feel that the Deloitte report had clearly set out the benefits of a three unitary model.

 

Cllr C Ringer began by saying that he was proud to be member of North Norfolk District Council and he was reluctant to see that change and the impact of removing this would be negative on residents. Ultimately, the end result would still be three tiers of local government – instead of parish, district  and county it would be parish, unitary and elected mayor. He was disappointed to hear that the opposition were planning to abstain. By not taking part in the discussions, they would be passengers on a government journey. He agreed that there was not enough information available but the report stated that and it was important that all members were fully engaged and that the Council spoke with one voice on such a key issue.

 

Cllr L Shires commented on the perversity of the LGR proposals compared with the devolution report. One the one hand, additional power was being given to the county and on the other, local residents were going to lose local power in the removal of district councils. She believed that members all agreed that this was not the right solution at the current time. Her focus however, was on local residents who were confused between devolution and LGR and who just wanted to know if they would save money on their council tax bill. This was not a cost saving exercise and was not putting residents first. That said, the Council had to submit a proposal and she therefore reluctantly supported a three unitary model.

 

Cllr J Punchard said that he had a balanced view on this issue. His main concern was the speed at which decisions were being taken. He said that he had been involved in planning applications that had taken longer. He respected the standpoint of the Greater Norwich area but from a personal perspective he was concerned about smaller villages and how their needs would be met by a large, single unitary.

 

Cllr P Heinrich said that change would come regardless and it needed to be embraced and made to work for local people. He had worked for a unitary authority previously but not on the scale of these proposals. He accepted the argument for a greater Norwich unitary but saw no sense in creating a ‘do-nut’ around Norwich. Those in coastal areas would not have their needs serviced. Two unitaries, plus one for Norwich made more sense. It allowed for commonality between existing areas. That said, concerns remained about the ability to respond to the concerns and needs of local residents – even a three unitary model would remove the local connections and awareness that the District Councils currently provided. In conclusion, he said that the basic three unitary model was the most logical in keeping some semblance of local government as a local service provider.

 

Cllr L Vickers said that she supported the sentiments expressed by Cllr Ringer but recognised that change was inevitable. There was no doubt that the process was being rushed and Deloitte had done its best in the short timescale provided. She believed in evidence-based policy and she just couldn’t see the evidence to support the proposals. Cllr Vickers said that members should push back hard against the tight deadlines set by the Government and say that more information was needed to come to a decision.

 

Cllr N Dixon referred to Cllr Ringer’s comments. He said that all members aimed to do a good job but they should also be asking if they could do better. This meant that the way services were designed and delivered must be looked at and the way elected members represented their communities. As he saw it, there were currently 8 councils which had taken an indulgent approach in proposing a range of proposals, all of which were based on scant evidence. He accepted that a response was required but his main focus was on what happened next. Central government’s response to the proposals would be crucial. It was likely that they had a preferred model in mind and one way or another that direction would be the one that was pursued. He agreed that it was important that all members worked together and this was particularly important once the government had responded to the interim proposals. In conclusion, he said that he wasn’t prepared to back any one of the proposals due to the lack of evidence underpinning them.

 

Cllr L Withington commented that a single unitary was so detrimental that she could not consider it. This was demonstrated by the impact on the tourism sector in North Norfolk which was currently worth £427m to the area. This would become lost to the pressures of social care under a single unitary. North Norfolk was currently a thriving local economy with its tourism and a large unitary authority would put all of this at risk. NNDC was also a very asset-rich authority and it was likely that the revenue would not be used to provide services that residents currently relied on. She accepted that this was the initial stage but the Council needed to show that it was prepared to fight for North Norfolk.

 

Cllr N Housden said that Options 2 and 3 both referred to the ‘remainder of North Norfolk’ and boundaries which were yet to be defined and this caused him huge concern as it was not clear what any decision should be based on. The lack of detail and information really concerned him.

 

Cllr M Hankins echoed comments made earlier that England operated the most centralised system of government in Europe and there was an opportunity to respond in a way that expressed the view clearly about what was needed from a devolved authority in terms of additional power and money.

 

Cllr J Toye said that he understood the argument that a single unitary would save money but he shared concerns about the lack of local representation and so suitable options to address both needed to be explored. He said that concerns about inequalities across three unitaries should be balanced out by having an elected mayor in place. It was important that members had faith in themselves as the process unfolded and remained engaged and involved throughout.

 

Cllr A Brown said that he had looked back over the history unitary proposals in Norfolk, specifically 2009 and said that there was much to learn. He said he knew what he didn’t want and that was a single unitary. It was too large and each councillor would have 8-9k residents to represent. He believed that it was important to submit the Deloitte proposals to government to force their hand and ensure that they took a more granular approach.

 

Cllr J Punchard requested that the four recommendations were split and voted on separately.

 

Cllr T Adams responded to some of the points raised. He acknowledged that the timescales were extremely tight and there was a lack of detail.

 

He said that district councils had tried to engage with the County Council but they had been reluctant. Ultimately, his fear was that the Government was trying to deal with the challenges of local government funding without putting any more money into the system. He accepted that the lack of information around proposed boundaries was causing anxiety but felt that these would become clearer soon.

 

In response to Cllr Dixon’s comment that the Government already had a preferred model in mind, Cllr Adam’s said that he also held this view and that he believed they wanted a Norwich unitary and that the rest of the County was being left to get on with things. He added that one positive outcome from all of this was that the district councils had been collaborating on responding to the proposals. He thanked all members for their input.

 

The Chair commented that she struggled with the loss of local voices and locality in a single unitary but also the disaggregation of statutory services across three unitaries. She felt that more consideration should be given to parish councils and their role as local representatives.

 

Cllr W Fredericks then spoke as seconder of the motion. She said that when she was elected as a councillor she believed that she was working with residents and creating something special at District Council level. She struggled with proposals that were not in the best interests of residents. She did not want a single unitary as it would not support residents and it would erase the identity of North Norfolk. She felt the three unitary model was the best that could be offered at the current time. The Government would not talk to NNDC unless serious proposals were put forward. Silence would give the Government carte blanche to impose what they wanted.

 

Cllr P Neatherway referred to the timeline set out in the report and asked if there was flexibility for the Council to change its submission ahead of the final deadline in September. Cllr Adams replied that a lot could happen in the next few months and it was possible that as more information came through that the narrative would change. It was also possible that the deadline would be extended.

 

The Chief Executive explained that the invitation from the Government to engage with the process was included in the agenda pack and it had since been clarified that the final submission point would be in September. It was anticipated that some feedback would be provided following the submission of the interim plan and this would then form the basis for refining the final submission.

 

The Chair then moved to the vote, with each recommendation being taken separately.

 

It was proposed by Cllr T Adams, seconded by Cllr W Fredericks and

 

RESOLVED

 

Recommendation 1:

 

To express the view that the Council disagrees with the Government’s proposals to introduce a unitary local government structure in Norfolk; as it is not convinced that such an arrangement will best meet the needs of the district’s rural communities and residents or deliver the savings and efficiencies anticipated.

 

11 members abstained.

 

Recommendation 2:

 

Accepting, however, that this is the position of Government as detailed in the English Devolution White Paper, the Council strongly objects to proposals being suggested for a single unitary authority covering the whole of Norfolk in that it will be of a very large scale in terms of area and population served, will not be able to reflect the distinct communities of place and interest which exist across the county, and not meet the definition of “local” government in understanding local places or in providing services tailored to meet local needs.

 

11 members abstained.

 

Recommendation 3:

 

To strongly support proposals for a three unitary council model for Norfolk in the future as the basis of the interim plan to be submitted to Government.  The Council believes that such an arrangement would best meet the six key criteria laid out by Government and would see one authority based on the urban area of Norwich; an authority covering the West of the county with a strong agricultural and agri-tech economy and an East authority with a key focus on clean energy and tourism.

13 members abstained.

 

Recommendation 4:

 

To agree that the Council’s response to Government regarding local government reorganisation in Norfolk to be submitted by 21^st March 2025 makes reference to an Interim Plan proposing three unitary councils in Norfolk as detailed at Appendix 3 with the submission of the response to be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council.

 

13 members abstained.