Agenda item

The Leader introduced a report seeking endorsement and support to act to preserve the borough, following release of the English Devolution White Paper on 16 December, 2024.

 

The paper added forced unitarization  to the devolution and stated that councils should be around 500,000 residents strong implying that Stoke City Council could merge with Newcastle and would take away the decision making and delivery of its services.

 

Devolution had been on the agenda for a while.  The previous government was bringing forward devolution deals – bringing more power and money to be spent locally to deliver services.  The Staffordshire Leaders Board put in a devolution submission in September when the present government indicated that they wished to have submissions.  There had been no mention of forced unitarization but there was mention of elected mayors.  Members’ attention was drawn to paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5 of the report which set out what had been included in the Staffordshire Leaders Board submission.

 

The Leader stated that thousands of residents in the borough appreciated its history.  There was a proud record of delivery of services here which could suffer under unitarization.  This Council needed to stand up for its residents and for the history of the Borough.

 

The Leader had reached out to Adam Jogee MP for his support in saving the borough and he had mentioned it in Parliament since.

 

This Council needed to ensure that any changes served the best interests of residents and preserve the unique character, autonomy and history of the borough.

 

The Government would be setting out the full details by the end of January and were hoping for a submission during March.  Newcastle was not in the initial phase, it would be possibly 2027/28 before there was any significant change.

 

The Mayor referred to an amendment that had been tabled this evening by the Labour Group, however, an adjournment of the meeting was required for officers and the Mayor to review the document before proceeding further. 

 

Meeting adjourned at 7.20pm

 

Meeting resumed at 7.51pm

 

The Mayor stated that, following advice from officers, the amendment was declined due to it having significantly changed from the motion contained within the agenda.

 

Councillor Parker arrived at 7.55pm

 

Councillor Sweeney, in seconding the motion stated that he had been looking through various papers and had come across various aspects that reorganisation must achieve, such as enhancing local services and democracy; have the support of local residents and have the agreement of the whole local government sector which he felt  would not do so in this case.  Councillor Sweeney questioned how cutting councillors would increase democratic accountability.  Reorganisation would not drive savings if there were redundancy, consultancy and set-up costs. 

 

Councillor Dave Jones stated that reorganisation was a once in a generation opportunity to reset council services and design better provision for residents.  The formation of the new unitary councils came with the proposal of more devolved powers over various services.  It would provide an opportunity to have a seat at the table of upper tier services.  Councillor Jones felt that reorganisation was needed because residents were being let down by the County Council.

 

Councillor Whieldon stated that Stoke on Trent City Council had never had a good bank balance and without financial and fiscal security in Newcastle, it would be at a distance as the city would take precedence and Newcastle would be used to prop up Stoke’s fiscal failings.

 

Councillor Stubbs stated that modern governance needs may differ from those in the past and historical independence did not provide a practical argument against reorganisation.  Reorganisation could streamline services and improve efficiency and bring additional resources and expertise.  Councillor Stubbs stated that a more comprehensive analysis of the White Paper should consider both the risks and the opportunities.    

 

Councillor Reece stated that reorganisation had the potential to deal with pressing issues for residents such as adult social care and hospitals.  Reorganisation of local authorities across Staffordshire and the creation of larger, more geographically representative unitary councils would allow for the resetting of relationships with care providers, integrated care boards and hospital trusts. 

 

Councillor Paul Waring stated that this Authority had provided a sound financial base and as such benefited from significant assets.  Any amalgamation would be detrimental to residents and there was no clear evidence that creating larger bodies led to economies of scale.  It had been seen where larger authorities had got into financial difficulty whereas smaller ones had managed to avoid it.

 

Councillor Adcock stated that it was important to stand up for the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme.  Cross-council working had many benefits and Newcastle was proud to work with its partners, however, a much larger unitary authority would have much less focus on Newcastle and its villages/rural areas.

Newcastle’s business would be decided in Stoke by councillors, very few of whom represented the borough. 

 

Councillor Fox-Hewitt stated that councils had a duty to hold power to account and to ensure that changes serve the public good. 

 

Councillor Skelding stated that the White Paper represented the dilution of the borough’s heritage and the loss of its individual identity. Local facilities such as the museum would be lost and there would be no control over money coming into the borough for projects.  

 

Councillor Gorton stated that the White Paper adopted a high handed, top down approach. There was very little in the White Paper to justify the combining of county and borough/district councils.  Change of some kind may be coming and there were two ways in which the Council could respond; refuse any reform or work with other Staffordshire councils to put together models for a new structure of local government. There were key aspects that needed to be preserved in any new structure such as mayoralty, honorary aldermen and burgesses.  Change to the delivery of services in North Staffordshire may allow councils to improve and strengthen key services. 

 

It was hoped that  before a firm decision was reached here at Newcastle, all Members would be able to scrutinise and examine the options for change.

 

Councillor Heesom stated that this Council was solvent and well run and had demonstrated that it could focus and influence actions and decisions at a local level.

 

Councillor Lewis stated that highways and transport were letting people down and said that it was time for accountability and a commitment to delivering the basic standards. 

 

Councillor Holland stated that it could be considered more widely whether unitarization was a good thing and what the optimum size for a unitary authority might be.  Referring to being made into a larger authority, Councillor Holland stated that the Walleys Quarry Issue, the Local Plan and the Town Deals funding would not have been dealt with as effectively as this Council had done.   

 

Councillor Brown stated that ways of improving and enhancing the services provided by this Council could be looked at.   Residents had not been consulted on this yet and therefore it was not known if they would be opposed to any reorganisation.  A unitary authority could simplify the way in which a council worked.

 

Councillor Fear stated that the White Paper was all about centralisation; taking power away from smaller groups to bigger groups and with fewer elected members per head of population.  Having been a Councillor at Newcastle for many years, Councillor Fear stated that every power that had been moved upwards, away from the Borough had got worse.

 

In summing up, the Leader thanked all Members for their views and stated that he would be engaging with this and had been since the announcement in December and had been key members in putting together the bid that went in for devolution in September, which the government did not respond to.    

 

The Leader stated that attacks on the County Council were bad form, especially as their public health function had been heavily involved with the Walleys Quarry issue and continued to be so.

 

The White Paper had been sprung upon local authorities by the government in December, 2024 after bids for devolution had been requested in September of that year.

 

It was hoped that this Council could work with the local MP to put forward a case accepting the history of the borough and that local services were best and to point out some of the deficiencies of unitarization.  If the government forced this forward this Council would work with its partners to make whatever was imposed happen.   

 

A named vote was requested:

ADCOCK	Y	GORTON	N	RICHARDS	N
ALLPORT	ABSENT	GROCOTT	N	SKELDING	Y
BARKER	Y	HEESOM	Y	STUBBS	N
BEESTON	Y	HOLLAND	Y	SWEENEY	Y
BERRISFORD	Y	HUTCHISON	Y	J TAGG	Y
BETTLEY-SMITH	ABSENT	JOHNSON	Y	S TAGG	Y
		D JONES	N	J WARING	Y
BROWN	N	S JONES	ABSENT	P WARING	Y
BRYAN	Y	LAWLEY	ABSENT	WHIELDON	Y
BURNETT-FAULKNER	Y	LEWIS	N	WHITMORE	Y
CRISP	Y	MOSS	ABSENT	WILKES	Y
DYMOND	N	NORTHCOTT	Y	G WILLIAMS	N
EDGINGTON-PLUNKETT	N	PANTER	Y	J WILLIAMS	N
FEAR	Y	PARKER	Y	WRIGHT	N
FOX-HEWITT	N	REECE	N

 

In Favour (Y) –  24

Against (N) - 14

Abstain – 0

 

The motion was carried

 

 

 

Resolved:    (i)       That the contents and implications of the English

Devolution White Paper be noted.

(ii)      That Council pledges to stand up for the historic

independence of the Borough.

(iii)      That the petitioning of residents in relation to the preservation of the Borough, be supported.

(iv)     That Newcastle-under-Lyme’s Members of Parliament be called upon to support the Borough’s preservation, and that they engage with Government Ministers in stating the case for the Borough.

(v)      That the Leader & Chief Executive write to the Deputy Prime Minister and relevant Ministers stating the Council’s position.

(vi)     That the Leader be enabled to take forward necessary discussions and actions with Government and others and report these to the next suitable full Council.

 

Watch the debate here