Agenda and draft minutes

This was noted.

To receive Declarations of Interest from Members on items included on the agenda.

The Chief Executive advised Members of the special dispensation for Members in respect of Local Government Reorganisation advising them that they were able to participate in the meeting.

There were no other Declarations of Interest from Members.

Watch the explanation here

The Leader introduced a report setting out the proposed Terms of Reference for the Cabinet Panel, including key functions and membership.

The Leader stated that the Terms of Reference would apply to this meeting only as, following the Local Government Elections in May the newly elected membership would review the Terms of Reference.

Councillor Holland stated that the draft Terms of Reference stated that this was a politically balanced, six member panel and suggested that it could be a five member panel split 5:3 between the two main groups.

The Leader stated that, for this meeting this was a correct proportionality.  However, after the elections it could be different if there was several groups making up the Council.

Resolved:    That the Terms of Reference be agreed.

Watch the debate here

The Chief Executive gave a presentation on the Four Unitary Council options put forward by the Council in November, 2025.

The presentation covered six areas; how the proposal was developed; pre-submission engagement and analysis; fit with Government criteria; financial sustainability; meeting local needs well and challenges and opportunities.

The Council had considered five options including a unitary for Newcastle-under-Lyme; a unitary across Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands; East and West Staffordshire unitary authorities; Newcastle-under -Lyme and Shropshire Unitary and a unitary authority on the existing footprint of Staffordshire County Council.

A range of engagement had been taken out within the time available with an online survey, individual stakeholder interviews and focus groups.  There had been strong cross-party support  for a Newcastle-under-Lyme unitary authority.

The Council had worked hard to ensure that the submission demonstrated that it fit with the six areas of the Government’s Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) criteria.

With regard to financial sustainability, it was felt that the proposal four smaller and agile unitary authorities brough a blend of local benefits and financial resilience.

The submission had to demonstrate how the proposal would meet local needs well and those included: retaining cultural and historical value proposition across all four unitary authorities; fair, decent and legal; opportunities for shared service delivery; developing a strong Foundation Strategic Authority to Mayoral Strategic Authority; Newcastle specific challenges that needed to be addressed; transition process.

In respect of the challenges and opportunities for Newcastle, those included: size and sustainability; complexity; placemaking and planning; partnerships and stakeholders; economy, innovation and growth; parishes, towns and local democracy; history, heritage and tradition; national level issues and priorities and addressing underlying staffing challenges.

The final slide of the presentation set out ten points that Newcastle asked the Government to consider, before making their decision.

The Leader asked the Chief Executive for an update on the Government’s announcement on the priority programme and how it might affect the Council’s option that had been put forward.

The Chief Executive stated that one of the key features was the size of new authorities in areas such as Suffolk with the three authorities being around 250,000 population each.  Also the Government’s option, again in Suffolk to divide across parish lines thus not maintaining boundaries.

Councillor Fox-Hewitt asked if Members would receive a copy of the consultation response and also sought clarification whether the payback over two financial cycles, as mentioned earlier, was over two calendar years and budgets or two Medium Term Financial Strategy.

In terms of the shared service delivery, what did that mean in practice?

The Chief Executive confirmed that the consultation response would be shared with Members.

One example of shared service delivery was included within the proposal as an existing model was waste. There was the existing Staffordshire Waste Partnership.  There were some challenges coming up with new facilities needed across Staffordshire with the intention being for Staffordshire to work as a whole unit.  There were particular challenges with children and young people and the number of care homes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Documents attached:

·       Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council’s response to the consultation

·       Submission from Adam Jogee MP

·       Letter from Adam Jogee MP

·       Response from the Leader of the Council, Councillor Simon Tagg

The Leader stated that the three local MP’s were unable to attend and had sent apologies.  Written submissions had been requested, following this Council’s Consultation response and one was received, from Adam Jogee MP.

Documents can be found at item 5 of the agenda.

The Leader thanked Adam Jogee for his submission.  In response the Leader felt that the record put forward by this Council and timelines did not support the claims put forward by the MP.  In addition it had been suggested that there had been no adequate engagement with the MP or partners although the documents showed otherwise. Also, a meeting had taken place on Teams with the three MP’s last autumn.

There had been extensive engagement, regarding LGR, with strategic partners and stakeholders within the Borough and there had been debates at three Full Council meetings.

There had been a claim of political motivation and a non-consistent approach, however, correspondence showed that Newcastle had a reason to consider every option, which was done – with Full Council choosing the Newcastle Unitary option.

There had been mention of the £200,000 that had been spent on LGR.  Although LGR had not been asked for, the Council had had to put forward a proposal that had gained cross-party support. 

The LGR process put forward by the Government required all Council’s to submit models by November, 2025 and this Council’s were prepared with the help of an external consultant and in accordance with the national criteria.

There was public support for the Council’s position and in response, the Council had put forward a proposal that would protect the Council and Borough’s identity, by creating a unitary authority.

The submission from the MP showed criticism of the current two-tier system, referring to coordination challenges.  This Council’s performance was strong with high quality cost effective services.

The Government had been actively consulting on the models with the results, as yet, unknown but civil servants had confirmed that local MP’s would be a key consultee going forward so the MP needed to talk to the Government to protect Newcastle’s identity.

This Council had been transparent with three debates in public, a consultation, talking to partners and key stakeholders in the Borough and reporting back at meetings. 

It was felt that the MP’s submission misrepresented what position this Council had taken.  This Council’s priority remained unchanged – to protect the Borough’s identity and it was hoped that the MP would support the Council going forward.

Councillor Fox-Hewit raised concerns over the remit of the Panel regarding earlier comments and whether it was appropriate to be discussing costs during the pre-election period.

The Chief Executive responded, as noted in the Terms of Reference document there was pre-election guidance accompanying it which set out what the Council was able to do and must not do.  Regarding the question on funding, the sum referred to had been previously published in previous Cabinet reports before the pre-election period.  Advice had also been sought from the Council’s Monitoring Officer that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Members agreed that a work programme should be produced at a meeting following the Local Government Elections in May, 2026.

Members agreed that a date for the next meeting should be set following the Local Government elections in May, 2026.

There was no other business.