Minutes:
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 that Newcastle had in the Borough and a creative solution would be sought.
Councillor Holland thanked the Chief Executive for the presentation and the work that had gone into it, also the Cabinet were thanked for convening this Cabinet Panel. The process would require cross party analysis but felt that one of the problems was, by engaging with it the Council was accepting the Governments terms that reorganisation was a benefit. The Chief Executive was asked, among the Council’s asks on the final slide, the Council would like to see devolution accelerated regardless of the progress of LGR. Was there any indication that the Council would receive good answers to those points raised.
Referring to the devolution process, the Chief Executive confirmed that it was included within the Council’s asks of Government. Work had been carried out prior to the LGR process and the ten Authorities had responded to the Minster stating that they were ready to talk about devolution.
The Leader stated that he had been pleased to sign the letter, along with the other leaders of Staffordshire and Stoke. It took the Council back to pre- November 2024 agreement to put forward a bid for a Strategic Authority. However, the end result of that was likely to be an elected Mayor and the Leader had some concerns about that as they could raise precepts and there would be no caps on those precepts.
Councillor Fear asked the Chief Executive how much, he felt, would have to be expended on the process in the coming months and also, had any thought been given to future proofing for beyond the elections or was it prudent to stay on the current course and if that was the case, what was the bill likely to be at the end of the process.
The Chief Executive stated that officers had sought to prepare for the timelines given by the Government. Regarding risk planning, there could be delays or changes but the Council would adjust if required to do so.
Regarding the resources, across Staffordshire and Stoke there had been a range of assumptions made and the Council was now in the middle of that financial trajectory. The transition costs would be over a ten to fifteen or longer period through the adjustment. The government would provide a sum of money to each new unitary authority.
The Leader pointed out that the Government had stated that any money spent on LGR and the transition must be in a separate reserve, which this Council had already done in February during budget setting. The Government were giving £63m to newly formed authorities under LGR not to authorities such as Newcastle who would be putting work and resources into the transition.
Councillor Holland stated that the Government’s proposals for Norfolk and other areas had been seen and the population size of those authorities were a lot smaller than initially expected. Councillor Holland reflected when all authorities generated proposals the Government was clear on the population size target of 500,000 but it appeared now that the goalposts could move. Councillor Holland asked whether this Council would have done anything differently if it had been known from the outset that the Government may have been amenable to substantially smaller unitary authorities. Also, were there future changes that might be made mid-stride.
The Chief Executive stated that as the LGR process had gone through many iterations there had been a difference in the numbers in areas that had not been fast-tracked – such as Surrey. Regarding whether the guidance had changed, the 500,000 was a target figure that then moved to guidance and a number of authorities were smaller than that as a result.
The Leader, referring to civic functions and Burgesses, the Chief Executive was asked for confirmation that when it had been raised with the Civil Servants they had not had an answer on that point or provided any further information. Also, the issue to do with parish and town councils and local democracy. If Newcastle was to obtain unitary status it would enable the continuation of the civic functions and also the current structure of Government within the Borough. However, if the bid was not successful it would not be too late to start the process of reviewing parishes and creating town councils if necessary to try and save some of the trappings of the Borough.
The Chief Executive stated that the Council had been in contact with the Staffordshire Parish Councils Association who were keen for principal authorities to look at the reviewing and creating Town/Parish Councils as an option. This did fit with Newcastle’s option which stated that governance models would be looked at, including the option of parish and town councils.
Regarding the Burgesses, the Council had engaged with Civil Servants who had a civic team who were supporting LGR and questions had been raised up through the MHCLG leads for guidance.
Councillor Jones, referring to concerns about a directly elected mayor having the ability to set precepts without a limit, stated that parish councils had that same function. If a town Council were to be associated with civic functions, the managing of the process could map through onto the precept and passed onto residents.
The Leader stated that this point had been made at the first Full Council meeting where LGR was discussed. However, the Council was not going to miss the opportunity of putting something in place if that was what people requested.
Resolved: That the presentation be received and the comments noted.