TWO competing visions have now emerged for the future political map of Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire.
Leaders at Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Staffordshire County Council have unveiled contrasting proposals for how local government across the area can be reorganised in response to the Government’s devolution white paper.
At the moment, local government services in Staffordshire are split between the county council and eight district and borough councils – a two-tier system – while Stoke-on-Trent has a single unitary authority responsible for all services.
The Government wants to do away with all remaining two-tier councils and replace them with a single layer of unitaries, which it claims will be more efficient and effective.
Existing councils have been invited to come up with outline proposals for ‘unitarisation’ by 21st March.
In February, Stoke-on-Trent City Council leaders published plans a new North Staffordshire council, which would see a single unitary covering Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle and the Staffordshire Moorlands – and potentially parts of Stafford and East Staffordshire as well – leaving the south of the county free to merge into a separate unitary.
But county council chiefs have now come forward with proposals for a Staffordshire unitary, which would effectively see the county council merge with the districts and boroughs. Under these plans, Stoke-on-Trent would remain untouched.
These two proposals are mutually incompatible and it now seems likely that either one or the other will happen. So how do the rival bids stack up?
Simplicity
While merging councils will always be complicated, the county council proposal has a clear advantage in this area.
The creation of a North Staffordshire council would involve the ‘disaggregation’ of existing county council services, such as highways and social care, into two parts, with the northern services then being merged with Stoke-on-Trent’s.
Things would get even more complicated if parts of Stafford and East Staffordshire are included, which would mean district-level services such as bin collections, also being split apart and recombined.
In contrast, the Staffordshire unitary proposal would see highways and social care within the county area continuing in the same form. District-level services would effectively be swallowed up by the county council and there would be no changes at all for any services in Stoke-on-Trent.
As well as being cheaper and easier to implement, the county council proposal would involve less risk to service users, particularly in the area of social care.
People who rely on social are are among the most vulnerable in society, and any disruption to services during the transition period could have dire consequences. This is all the more pertinent considering Stoke-on-Trent’s children’s services have only recently moved out of Government intervention.
Population size
The Government has said that it expects the new unitary authorities to cover populations of at least 500,000. Supporters of larger unitaries believe they can achieve greater economies of scale, while also giving them the ability to act more strategically, with more financial heft and a stronger voice.
The proposed Staffordshire unitary proposed by the county council would have a population of around 875,000 – easily big enough to meet the government’s criteria. But Stoke-on-Trent City Council would be left with a population of just 260,000, far below the 500,000 threshold.
It is unclear whether the Government would allow smaller, existing unitaries to continue.
The population of the proposed North Staffordshire council would be around 480,000, which is more likely to be acceptable to the Government, while the southern unitary would have around 650,000 people. This arrangement would also have the advantage of creating two councils of roughly similar size, instead of one being much bigger than its neighbour.
Geography
In its guidance to councils, the Government says that the new unitaries should cover “sensible economic areas” and “sensible geography” that will help to increase local housing.
Stoke-on-Trent council leaders claim that North Staffordshire is already a coherent economic unit, with strong ties between the city, Newcastle and the Moorlands.
North Staffordshire’s political boundaries roughly align with the “travel to work area” used by organisations such as the Office for National Statistics.
City council leaders also suggest that including higher band taxpayers in Newcastle and the Moorlands will also put a North Staffordshire council on a firmer financial footing than Stoke-on-Trent on its own.
Newcastle and Moorlands councillors opposed to the idea claim this would amount to residents in those areas being expected to subsidise services in Stoke-on-Trent.
The county council, on the other hand, says that a Staffordshire unitary would be more “recognisable” to residents, and would be “readily defined” using existing district boundaries as the basic building blocks.
County council leaders are also concerned at the “ongoing financial distress” at Stoke-on-Trent City Council, and that a North Staffordshire unitary would result in poorer services for residents in Newcastle and the Moorlands.
Where do they agree?
While the city and county councils disagree on local government reorganisation, there is more alignment on the issue of devolution.
The Government wants to introduce strategic authorities to every part of England not currently covered by a devolution deal.
These new strategic authorities would bring together two or more unitaries and would wield devolved powers in areas such as transport, economic development and skills.
The Government has left it up to local areas to decide whether they want an elected mayor to run their strategic authority, but ministers have made it clear that the mayoral option is the only way of unlocking a full devolution package.
Leaders at the city and county councils now support the idea of an mayoral strategic authority as a way of ensuring a good devolution deal. All councils in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire had previously opposed an elected mayor, saying that the Staffordshire leaders board could act as their vehicle for devolution.
The city and county councils now accept that this is no longer viable.
The county council is in favour of a Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire mayoral strategic authority, saying that the two areas share a “strong functional economic geography”.
But it also suggests the possibility of including Shropshire and Telford and Wrekin as well – this would push the population of the strategic authority above the 1.5 million threshold recommended by the government.
The city council has suggested four different options for a strategic authority, including the Staffordshire-wide proposal. Joining with Cheshire, or Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, are other potential options.
What happens now?
The Government has said it expects councils to come forward with a single set of proposals for their areas, instead of rival plans – although it accepts that this may not be possible in some cases.
Talks are continuing between the Staffordshire authorities, but at this stage it seems likely that the city and county councils will be submitting separate proposals to the Government.
Interim proposals have to be submitted by 21st March, with a November deadline for the final plans.
Excellent article explaining the different options and scenarios, thank you as always Lichfield Live for keeping us informed.
Mayor’s a complete waste of time stoke needs less control not more
Good article. I suspect the government will go with the Stoke, Newcastle and Moorlands. They are not going to have a smallish Potteries Unitary surrounded by a massive 875k pop Unitary, especially when the N Staffs areas are economically/transport/health/education concentric to one another. The biggest Unitary currently is Cornwall at 575k population, then Buckinghamshire 560k and Durham 528k.
It makes more sense for a South of the County Unitary, as S Staffs, Cannock, Lichfield and Tamworth (A5 corridor) are Brum and West Midlands concentric. The mistake the Conservative CC made was not going Unitary before. They would have two Unitaries of 400 to 450k population, on their own terms. What it is about is Moorlands and Newcastle taking umbrage at ending up with the poorer neighbour Stoke.
@RFW You’ve said twice now that Staffs CC made a mistake not going unitary before. They didn’t make a mistake because the people of Staffordshire don’t want a super authority, and neither did Staffs CC. They are only doing this now because they are being forced to.
Additionally, I’m opposed to Lichfield being included in an authority with Burton & Cannock as we are fundementally different people, different districts with different needs. We are a predominantly rural and affluent district, whereas East Staffs and Cannock Chase are urban and poorer. I don’t think many Lichfield residents feel anything in common with these neighbours, they speak differently to us, they behave differently to us and their high streets… look very different to ours. I feel no connection to Birmingham either. Lichfield’s indepedence has allowed it to flourish. In a unitary authority our voice will be drowned out, and our wallets will be emptied as our council tax is sent elsewhere.
Birmingham City Council (effectively unitary in a combined authority like Staffordshire will be in whatever format) is the only sort of authority with a population like the mega Staffordshire one proposed by the county which isn’t exactly a roaring success.
I sympathise with St John’s C but sadly soon we will be the bank for our neighbours.
These government proposed reforms of councils (including Lichfield District Council) are HUGE. They must not lead to large/unwieldy councils with no real connection to communities. The Lichfield Lib Dems have said that the reforms must not be at the expenses of weakening the connection between councils and the communities they serve.
https://lichfieldlive.co.uk/2025/02/25/community-connections-must-be-at-the-heart-of-unitary-authority-reforms-lichfield-liberal-democrat-councillor-says/
So one new unitary authority for the whole of Staffs (or Staffs County as Staffs County Council have proposed) is a non-starter.
Creating larger authorities is not creating more local power by devolution, it is reducing it. I suspect Labour hopes it will reduce costs, or lead to the opportunity for more Labour control.
The local example of the failing Birmingham Council is the perfect example of a large authority that is not succeeding at providing good governance to the area.
Local governance by people that understand a local area is a good thing in my opinion.