Agenda item

The Committee has requested a report on the Council’s proposal for Local Government Reorganisation before it is considered by Cabinet on 13 November.

The Committee has invited Cllr Liz Leffman, the Leader of the Council, to present the report and has invited Martin Reeves, Chief Executive, Lorna Baxter, Executive Director of Resources and Section 151 Officer (Deputy Chief Executive), and Helen Mitchell, Programme Director: Local Government Reorganisation to answer the Committee’s questions.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

The Committee is also provided with copies of alternative proposals from other councils for Local Government Reorganisation in Oxfordshire.

The Committee requested a report on the Council’s proposal for Local Government Reorganisation before it was considered by Cabinet on 13 November. The Committee invited Cllr Liz Leffman, the Leader of the Council, to present the report and welcomed Lorna Baxter, Executive Director of Resources and Section 151 Officer (Deputy Chief Executive), Anita Bradley, Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer, Rob MacDougall, Chief Fire Officer and Director of Community Safety, Helen Mitchell, Programme Director: Local Government Reorganisation, Robin Rogers, Director of Environment and Place, and Susannah Wintersgill, Director of Public Affairs, Policy and Partnerships, answer the Committee’s questions.

The Leader of the Council introduced Local Government Reorganisation, outlining three proposals for submission: a single unitary authority from the County Council, plus two- and three-unitary options from districts and the city. She urged a focus on making the strongest case for a single unitary, particularly regarding service integration, councillor numbers, and the impact on key services such as adult social care, children's services, and transport. Comments were invited to shape the final proposal.

The Programme Director explained that three options for Local Government Reorganisation had been developed, following a statutory invitation for reform. Engagement with the public and partners focused on refining the proposals, emphasising simplicity, minimal disruption, and the importance of strong local governance, particularly the role of town and parish councils. The rationale for a single Oxfordshire-wide authority included historical continuity, integrated services, and efficient transition without fragmenting existing provision. The Programme Director highlighted aims to build on best practice and enhance service delivery, especially in homelessness and housing.

The Executive Director of Resources and Section 151 Officer presented the financial aspects of Local Government Reorganisation, noting that PwC’s independent evaluation showed guaranteed savings from reorganisation and additional, less certain savings from transformation. She stressed that the single Oxfordshire authority was deemed the most financially resilient and lowest risk, according to the Financial Resilience Index, particularly given likely funding cuts under the Fair Funding Review. She further explained that adopting a single unitary model would lead to minimal changes in council tax levels, making it a more stable option compared to the two- or three-unitary proposals.

The Chair opened up the discussion to Members inviting comments and questions on the One Oxfordshire Proposal.

·       During the discussion on local government reorganisation, a councillor enquired about the future management of Oxford City Council's council homes, raising concerns about housing debt and the potential impact of a single unitary authority on council housing. Officers explained that all council tenants would be securely transferred to the new authority, which would also inherit the existing expertise and skills in housing management. The Executive Director clarified that the housing debt was asset-backed and would be treated separately from general debt, and emphasised that any decisions regarding the future structure or management of council housing would be made by the new authority, not predetermined in the current proposal.

·       A councillor inquired about the implications for West Berkshire if it were not part of the One Oxfordshire proposal and raised questions regarding the possible size of a single Oxfordshire unitary authority. Officers responded that West Berkshire was already a unitary authority and would not be affected, stating that including West Berkshire could be disruptive and was not viewed as advantageous for Oxfordshire residents. Officers also addressed concerns about size by noting that, although One Oxfordshire would be large, other counties were considering unitaries of comparable or larger size, and government policy did not specify an upper population limit.

·       A councillor raised concerns regarding Oxfordshire's level of representation within a prospective Mayoral Strategic Authority (MSA), questioning whether a transition to a single unitary authority could potentially diminish Oxfordshire’s influence compared to the current arrangement of multiple authorities. In response, the Leader clarified that the governance framework for the MSA remained under consideration but emphasised that a unified Oxfordshire authority could offer a consolidated and influential voice. The Leader, and Officers, further explained that representation on the MSA cabinet would be subject to negotiation amongst all participating authorities, and it remained feasible for Oxfordshire to have multiple representatives based on the eventual governance structure.

·       Members asked what powers area committees would have under the One Oxfordshire proposal, stressing the importance of these committees having meaningful authority rather than being mere discussion fora. Officers replied that the proposal included a strong focus on area committees, with an expectation that they would have decision-making powers and budgets. The Programme Director stated that the exact functions and powers would be developed further, likely including responsibilities over local services such as leisure, and that further work and consultation would shape the final arrangements.

·       A councillor expressed concern that, with the formation of a new authority, there could be a considerable loss of experience and organisational memory if staff opted for early retirement or voluntary redundancy during the transition. Officers acknowledged this was a risk, noting that such changes often prompted staff to leave. Officers emphasised the importance of fostering a positive and attractive organisational culture to encourage staff to remain for at least a few years whilst the new authority was established. Additionally, Officers described practical steps being taken, such as arranging training sessions and knowledge-sharing opportunities between staff from different councils, to help retain expertise and ensure a smoother transition. 

·       Members raised concerns about the future of the fire and rescue service if Oxfordshire were to move away from a single unitary authority towards two or more councils. The question focused on whether the service would need to be disaggregated and what the implications would be. The Chief Fire Officer responded that, in such a case, the fire and rescue service would have to be separated from the county council and reconstituted as a combined fire authority, as seen in Berkshire, where multiple unitaries share a single fire service. It was highlighted that this would require establishing a new governance structure with elected members from each council, incurring significant upfront costs and operational complexities. Officers also pointed out that this arrangement might only be temporary if a mayoral combined authority was introduced soon afterwards, making the process potentially inefficient and disruptive.

Cllr Kerr left the meeting at this stage.

·       Members questioned how democratic responsibility would be maintained under the One Oxfordshire proposal, particularly as the number of councillors would decrease and wards would become larger, potentially reducing local representation in rural areas. Officers recognised these concerns, stating that a boundary review would determine new divisions based on government guidance and population, following the vesting day of the new authority. Officers also noted that area committees were intended to bolster local accountability and resident engagement but acknowledged the challenge of balancing effective local democracy with national requirements and the need for efficiency in governance.

·       Members enquired about how parish and town councils might be affected by local government reorganisation, particularly regarding increased responsibilities. Officers responded that while many parishes were interested in managing more local services, their capacity varied greatly. The proposal intends to collaborate with parishes, enabling those willing and able to take on extra duties, but without placing undue pressure on smaller councils. Officers emphasised that any transfer of responsibilities must be managed carefully to prevent the emergence of a two-tier system and to ensure good value for taxpayers.

·       The discussion turned to how a single unitary authority for Oxfordshire could better manage local government funding cuts, especially with anticipated reductions from the fair funding review. Officers explained that a single authority, with a wider tax base and greater financial resilience, would be better placed to allocate resources and meet needs across the county. In contrast, smaller authorities might struggle if high-need areas lacked sufficient local funding, making a single authority a more sustainable option in an uncertain funding environment.  

·       Members expressed concern that the proposal lacked specifics on managing local services like waste, grounds maintenance, and playground repairs, as well as omitting net zero ambitions. Officers responded that some local services could be better delivered by capable town and parish councils but emphasised that not all would wish or be able to take on extra duties. On net zero, officers acknowledged it was not fully covered in the proposal but pointed to existing green financing and pledged to integrate net zero objectives into future plans for the new authority.

The Director of Economy and Place left the meeting at this stage.

·       Members questioned how stakeholder concerns and feedback had been reflected in the local government reorganisation proposal, noting that the summary of stakeholder views appeared limited and that many stakeholders, including employees, councillors, MPs, and public sector providers, had expressed worries about the proposed authority being too large and distant. Officers acknowledged these concerns, stating that feedback about the potential size and remoteness of the new council had been candidly included in the proposal. They clarified that while some stakeholders had raised issues about scale, others had been positive about the single unitary model, and they agreed to refine the stakeholder feedback section for greater clarity.

·       Concerns were raised about the inconsistencies in the financial analysis presented across the three local government reorganisation proposals, highlighting that the numbers and methodologies varied significantly and could confuse or undermine public trust in the process. The Executive Director responded by clarifying that both the single unitary and two unitary proposals had commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to conduct independent evaluations of potential savings, using a consistent methodology to allow for direct comparison between those two options. In contrast, the three unitary proposal had not used the same PwC approach, which meant its figures were not directly comparable. The Executive Director further explained that the financial analysis distinguished between savings from reorganisation, which were considered guaranteed and of primary interest to government, and additional transformation savings, which would depend on the future authority’s willingness and capacity to pursue further efficiencies.

·       The establishment of local area committees as part of the reorganisation raised questions about whether this would introduce additional administrative layers, increase the number of officers, meetings, and costs, and potentially create inconsistencies in decision-making across areas. Officers noted these points and clarified that area committees were required under each of the three government proposals. They stated that the aim was for these committees to have defined powers and budgets rather than serving as discussion fora, and indicated that further planning would be necessary to ensure effectiveness, accountability, and to minimise overlap or confusion.

·       During the discussion, one Member recounted persistent issues with the County Council, specifically the slow response times from officers compared to district council officers. The Member described how, in practice, district officers often replied within hours, while county responses could take days or weeks, and noted the recent introduction of a councillor enquiries form as evidence that the county was struggling to handle the volume of requests. Officers acknowledged these concerns, confirming that responsiveness had been a common theme in feedback from both Members and stakeholders. They assured the Committee that improving response times and overall service to members would be a key focus in the design of any new authority, aiming to create a more efficient and accessible organisation for councillors and residents alike.

Cllr Ley left the meeting at this stage

·       Concerns were raised about the Council’s engagement, with criticism focused on the quality of communications and the digital campaign, which, despite reaching 284,000 people, was seen as less effective than district councils’ more visible efforts like banners and roadshows. Officers acknowledged that their strategy prioritised factual awareness over active promotion of the Council’s proposal and accepted that engagement had been lacking. They agreed to make future engagement, particularly during the statutory consultation, more engaging and accessible to residents.

·       Members asked what the role of Council and of the Committee would be during the statutory consultation period for local government reorganisation. Officers responded that the County Council would act as both a statutory consultee and a promoter, providing its views on all proposals under consultation. They anticipated that the Committee would contribute by drafting or discussing the Council’s response, which would then be considered through the council’s governance processes, such as Cabinet or Scrutiny, before submission. It was clarified that the final decision on the consultation response would likely remain an executive function but the Leader noted her willingness for Full Council to give its view during the consultation.

The Committee AGREED to recommendations under the following headings:

• That the Council should ensure that future public communications regarding Local Government Reorganisation are engaging, accessible, and interesting.
• That the Council should give greater attention to neighbourhood governance, and particularly to Area Committees, within its submission to Government.
• That the Council should ensure that Full Council is given the opportunity to express its view on Local Government Reorganisation during the statutory consultation.