Agenda item

The report of the Chief Executive [To Follow]

The Leader and Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Borough-wide Leadership, Councillor Clarke MBE presented the report of the Chief Executive, which provided an overview of the Government’s requirement for plans for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) to be developed in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire and to update on the work undertaken to respond to the requirements.

In formally moving the recommendations detailed in the report, the Leader stated that LGR was the most important issue for Rushcliffe in years and summarised the actions taken since the publication of the Government’s White Paper in December 2024. He confirmed that in March, councils in Nottinghamshire had submitted three core options, all of which proposed two unitary councils, with Rushcliffe advancing a fourth option of three unitary councils. He confirmed that Rushcliffe’s position remained that no part of it should be part of a newly expanded City area, as Rushcliffe was well run, financially stable, delivering first class services, in contrast to the City Council.  The Leader advised that the original proposal had now been reduced to two options, 1b and 1e as detailed in Appendix D to the report, and Council noted that as Rushcliffe’s option had received little support from other authorities, the report was recommending supporting option 1b. The Leader reminded Council that this was not a final decision, it was an update, with work on the Council’s third option being paused; however, if circumstances changed it would be revisited. The Leader referred to evidence gained from the ongoing petition, with over 15,000 cross-party signatures, all against Rushcliffe joining any expanded City area. The Leader concluded by reiterating that this report was supporting an interim approach, working towards a final submission in November, and he thanked officers involved in this time consuming work.  

Councillor Brennan seconded the report and reserved the right to speak.

Councillor J Walker advised that the Labour Group had submitted an amendment, as it believed the proposal to be unbalanced and potentially damaging; however, as it could not be accepted, the Labour Group would not be supporting the recommendations. She felt that Rushcliffe would not have an open mind during the consultation process, with the proposed recommendations failing to serve the needs of local communities. Councillor Walker stated that all useful debate had been replaced by political rhetoric and that the proposals had been put forward without properly investigating all other options, as there were alternative ways to improve efficiencies and service delivery. Councillor Walker questioned why there had been no serious evaluation of the boundary review and what evidence there was in favour of option 1b rather than 1e. The Labour Group was demanding a better process, where all options were carefully considered, as residents deserved that.

Councillor Thomas referred to the most cost effective option of a single unitary authority, questioned why it had been discounted for political reasons and felt that it should be reconsidered, because if implemented with a commitment to running local area committees, it could deliver for everyone.  Councillor Thomas was concerned that recommendations e) and f) would limit Rushcliffe’s ability to have any influence over any possible alternative options put forward, with the river as a hard boundary, and if boundaries were to change, options which used the river for an expanded City could be considered.  Councillor Thomas referred to a changing storyline to emphasise that new councils would be formed, rather than saying that some districts would be added into the City, with the County Council taking the rest. She stated that it was vital going forward that the new councils were formed from the ground up, and it should be added to the recommendations.

Councillor Thomas proposed the following amendment, to add a further clause at the end, which was seconded by Councillor Way, who reserved the right to speak.

h)               it be recognised that after the reorganisation all councils in the Nottingham and Nottinghamshire area will be completely new organisations.

The Leader confirmed that he accepted the amendment, which then became part of the substantive motion.

Councillor Birch stated that he would like to propose the following amendment to g), which would be seconded by Councillor Chewings, who reserved the right to speak.

g)               to ensure the final proposal is informed by the views of local communities, Rushcliffe Borough Council will actively engage Town and Parish Councils, local community organisations, and businesses as part of a broader Engagement Strategy. In addition, to provide Central Government with an accurate reflection of residents’ views, the Council will undertake a Borough-wide Engagement Survey, to ensure the voices of Rushcliffe constituents are clearly heard.

Councillor Birch was concerned that the issue had been heavily politicised and felt that opposition Councillors had not been kept appropriately informed about LGR, with very little communication throughout the process, which failed to promote transparency and openness. Councillor Birch stated that the petition was not verifiable and was unreliable, and the amendment was calling for more engagement, with a public survey.   

The Leader advised that most of the work referred to had already been done and was contained in the documents, and confirmed that he accepted the amendment, which then became part of the substantive motion.

Councillor Polenta stated that LGR should be an opportunity to rethink how Council’s governed and funded services, with collective decision making for all.  She agreed that the petition was flawed and that an element of fear was stopping proper debate on this issue.  LGR should create financially sustainable authorities by rebuilding a broken system, with a unitary structure simplifying decision making and improving services for all.  A new vision was required and should be reflected in LGR, which put people before profit, with democratic devolutionary powers. 

Councillor Calvert was concerned that Rushcliffe was acting in self interest in relation to the rural parts of the Borough, by refusing to consider the best interests of West Bridgford, which was closely connected to the City. He reiterated previous concerns regarding the petition and the insulting remarks it contained about the City and for that reason he would not be supporting recommendation f). He also advised that he could not accept recommendations c) and d), as he felt that the analysis and scoring was very questionable.  In respect of increases to Council Tax, Councillor Calvert stated that the report came to a different view compared to figures in the petition, with it stating that there would be very little difference annually.

Councillor Soloman stated that she would be supporting option 1b as it was the only one to ensure that Rushcliffe would not be absorbed by the City, as it should not be expected to underwrite the City’s past mistakes, nor any authority that had failed its residents and mismanaged its finances. However, due to LGR this was the situation being faced and option 1b offered the best outcome for Rushcliffe, which should be the primary objective of every Councillor here. Option 1b would create two viable authorities, avoiding the risks and costs associated with more complex options, and had been appraised by independent, expert analysis. Councillor Soloman stated that any Councillor not supporting option 1b was failing to put Rushcliffe residents first, as it was largely rural and entirely incompatible with a city based unitary merger.

Councillor R Mallender agreed that local government was about local representation, which everyone tried to achieve. He noted the arguments raised that LGR would simplify things and improve efficiency; however, he felt that it would be better to give local authorities more effective control over their budgets and called for a sensible redistribution of wealth around the UK.  In reality LGR would still consist of at least two tiers, but by removing the lowest tier, it would impact the lowest level of democracy, and Councillor Mallender also called for voting reform, as the first past the post system was no longer fit for purpose.   

Councillor Gowland stated that she was in favour of having a single unitary authority; however, it would only work if all areas had strong town and parish councils. She was concerned that money had been spent investigating an unviable option, and whilst acknowledging that the City had financial problems, she felt that there were valid reasons for this, including the low Council Tax raised per household. Councillor Gowland also questioned how Council Tax was distributed around the County and stated that many Rushcliffe residents used services provided by the City. Under option 1b, West Bridgford, would be the only urban area, and she reminded Council that 40% of Rushcliffe’s population lived there and that it was part of the City. She felt that given the current boundaries, it made sense for Rushcliffe, the City and County Councils to talk to each other, to address joint concerns and she also called for a complete review of local government finances.  

Councillor Grocock was concerned that the recommendations failed to take into account the reality of the situation across the nine local authorities, with all of them forming positions, and whilst there was some support from other authorities for option 1b, he did not believe that any other authority would support recommendation f). Having previously spoken in favour of boundary review, Central Government had indicated that it was more open to this; however, despite other authorities considering it, Rushcliffe was refusing to do so and he questioned how Rushcliffe could share affinity with areas in the northern most part of the County. Councillor Grocock felt that if the other councils favoured option 1e, the best approach would be for Rushcliffe to support a boundary review, which other councils would also support.

Councillor Gaunt was concerned that the recommendations were based on inaccurate data and questioned the inclusion of data from the petition as that was unreliable, signatures could not be verified and he felt that many questions had to be answered before that data could be accepted as valid. Councillor Gaunt advised that he could not accept recommendation c) as he did not believe that the three unitary option would ever pass Central Government’s criteria regarding sustainability and work on this had already cost a great deal and would cost more if looked at further. Councillor Gaunt stated that by supporting recommendation f) Rushcliffe would be unable to negotiate going forward, even if circumstances changed.

Councillor Chewings felt that LGR was not fit for purpose, and whilst he did not agree that 1b was the best option, he stated that he would be voting for the recommendations. He was pleased that the Group’s amendment had been accepted, as the original recommendations did not allow for fair, impartial engagement, and was concerned that the high scores in the report, paid for by the Council were based on the unverified petition.  Councillor Chewings stated that if the recommendations were passed, he would hold the Council to account to ensure that a Borough-wide engagement survey would be undertaken.  

Councillor J Wheeler felt that the money spent on the report for the Council’s extra option had been well used, as the option had been independently appraised and shown to be viable, if circumstances changed.  He reiterated that LGR had been imposed by Central Government and had to be funded by the tax payer and advised that other councils were spending far more money than Rushcliffe.  He agreed that work on consultation was already taking place and felt that the City Council had caused its own problems by making poor political choices about its housing.  In respect of the petition, he felt that it did echo the concerns raised by residents that he had spoken to, and he stated that a boundary review was not feasible as it would take too long.  

Councillor Simms stated that he represented one of the most rural areas of the Borough, and no one that he had spoken to wanted to join the City and referred to the City’s history of poor financial management  

In seconding the recommendation, Councillor Brennan referred to the energy, time, expertise and money being spent on this process, which she failed to see would benefit anyone in Rushcliffe. The process had been imposed, with councils working together to try and come to an agreement, and even if everyone could agree that single tiers might be the most efficient option, the process had been rushed through and set up in a way which ensured politicisation. Councillor Brennan confirmed that 1b was already one of the recommendations agreed by all authorities and submitted to Government and was based on research by the commissioned experts. Councillor Brennan stated that the City had not put forward any option for new boundaries; however, Rushcliffe had worked hard to put an alternative option forward, which was being paused, whilst Rushcliffe looked at another option agreed by other authorities. This report was trying to narrow down options, finding the best one for Rushcliffe, whilst still engaging with all other authorities, and given the uncertainty ahead she felt that it was best to keep doors open. Councillor Brennan confirmed that there would be appropriate engagement going forward and she reiterated that 1b was the best option for Rushcliffe.

The Leader agreed with Councillor Brennan’s comments and with other Councillors that LGR had been imposed with impossible timescales. He advised that not all councils had expressed views yet on the options and stated that given the tight timescales, a boundary review would not be feasible. In answer to the criticism that money had been spent on looking at an alternative option, the Leader felt that exploring other options was a positive thing to do. Council was reminded that discussion on a single unitary authority had taken place over 50 years ago, there was no easy solution and in order to progress the work the recommendations should be supported. The Leader stated that it would be difficult to engage with the public effectively, given the short timescales and that timing would be key, given that this was not the final decision. The Leader advised that all information had been shared with Councillors as soon as it had been made available and he requested that a recorded vote be taken, which was agreed by four Councillors.

In accordance with Standing Order Paragraph 4.23, a recorded vote was taken for this item as follows:

FOR: Councillors M Barney, T Birch, R Bird, A Brennan, A Brown, R Butler, K Chewings, N Clarke, T Combellack, J Cottee, S Dellar, A Edyvean, S Ellis, E Georgiou, R Inglis, D Mason, P Matthews, H Om, H Parekh, N Regan, D Simms, D Soloman, R Upton, D Virdi, R Walker, T Wells, G Wheeler, J Wheeler, and G Williams

AGAINST: Councillors J Billin, S Calvert, J Chaplain, G Fletcher, M Gaunt P Gowland, C Grocock, L Plant, D Polenta and J Walker

ABSTENSIONS: Councillors R Mallender, S Mallender, Thomas and Way

It was RESOLVED that:

a)               the update be noted;

b)               continuing to work collaboratively with the other local authorities across Nottingham and Nottinghamshire with a view to developing a final unitary proposal for submission to Government by 28 November 2025 be endorsed;

c)               any further work focusing on the Council’s own three unitary option where Rushcliffe is joined with Newark and Sherwood and Gedling Borough Councils be temporarily paused until clarity is obtained on options being taken forward as part of the all Nottinghamshire and Nottingham councils joint work;

d)               it be endorsed that if further support materialises for a three unitary option from other councils, this option will be pursued further to a potential ‘final bid’ stage and further partnership working explored with other councils;

e)               the development of option 1(b) One unitary council covering Broxtowe, Gedling and Nottingham City and one unitary council covering the remaining County including Ashfield, Bassetlaw, Mansfield, Newark and Sherwood and Rushcliffe be supported;

f)                 the Council continues to ensure any proposal does not include any part of the current Rushcliffe Borough being absorbed into any new or expand city area;

g)               to ensure the final proposal is informed by the views of local communities, Rushcliffe Borough Council will actively engage Town and Parish Councils, local community organisations, and businesses as part of a broader Engagement Strategy. In addition, to provide Central Government with an accurate reflection of residents’ views, the Council will undertake a Borough-wide Engagement Survey, to ensure the voices of Rushcliffe constituents are clearly heard; and

h)               it be recognised that after the reorganisation all councils in the Nottingham and Nottinghamshire area will be completely new organisations.