FIVE different proposals for the future of local government across Staffordshire have now come forward.
The Government has told councils to come up with proposals for new unitary authorities, as part of the biggest shake-up since the 1970s.
But while ministers believe replacing the current two-tier system of counties and districts will save money and make councils more effective, local government reorganisation (LGR) is proving highly controversial, with critics saying the existing system works well and claiming larger bodies will be more distant and less responsive to people’s needs.
Staffordshire is currently covered by the county council and eight district and borough councils, with Stoke-on-Trent City Council already a unitary authority.
In a two-tier system, the county provides services such as social care and highways, which make up the bulk of local government spending, while functions such as bin collections and leisure are the responsibility of the districts and boroughs. Under a unitary system the same council is responsible for all these services.
Councils have been given until 28th November to submit their final proposals for LGR. The Government has told them that the new unitaries must meet certain criteria, such as having sensible geographies, being financially sustainable and having a population of at least 500,000 – although ministers have said they are prepared to compromise on this last point.
With just weeks to go until the deadline, five different models for LGR in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire have now come forward.
North Staffordshire Unitary Council and Southern and Mid Staffordshire Unitary Council
This proposal would see the county split into northern and southern unitaries, with Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands merging in the north, and Stafford, East Staffordshire, Cannock Chase, South Staffordshire, Tamworth and Lichfield combining in the south.
Who supports it: Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Stafford Borough Council, East Staffordshire Borough Council and Cannock Chase District Council
Pros: A north-south split would align with the existing economic and social geography of Staffordshire, creating two generally cohesive areas.
Replacing the ten existing councils with just two unitaries could provide the greatest amount of savings.
Cons: The southern unitary would be considerably bigger, with around 200,000 more residents, meaning it would have a larger tax base and greater economic clout, potentially leaving the north as the poor relation.
There would be concerns over the financial sustainability of the North Staffordshire council, and taxpayers in Newcastle and the Moorlands fear that they would have to shoulder some of Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s debt.
North Staffordshire Unitary Council and Southern and Mid-Staffordshire Unitary Council with boundary changes
This proposal is similar to the north-south split, but would see Stone, Uttoxeter and nearby villages moved into the northern unitary.
Who supports it: Staffordshire Moorlands District Council.
Pros: Expanding the North Staffordshire council area would make the two unitaries more equal in size, and would put the north on a firmer financial footing.
Arguably, the boundary changes would result in a council that aligns even more closely to the economic geography, with the entire A50 corridor up to the Derbyshire border being within a single council area.
Cons: This could be the most complex reorganisation proposal, as it would involve the disaggregation of district-level services in Stafford and East Staffordshire, as well as some county-level functions.
North Staffordshire Unitary Council, South East Staffordshire Unitary Council and South West Staffordshire Unitary Council
This proposal would see the southern and mid Staffordshire area split in two, with Stafford, Cannock Chase and South Staffordshire in the west, and East Staffordshire,, Tamworth and Lichfield in the east. A North Staffordshire Council would still cover Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle and the Moorlands, resulting in three unitary authorities.
Who supports it: Lichfield District Council, South Staffordshire Council and Tamworth Borough Council.
Pros: Smaller unitary councils in the south could be more responsive to their communities, with decisions being taken closer to where people live.
Cons: The two southern councils would have populations considerably smaller the 500,000 target set by government. Splitting Staffordshire into three, rather than two unitaries would also result in fewer financial savings.
East Staffordshire Unitary Council and West Staffordshire Unitary Council
This would involve an east-west split, with Newcastle, Stafford, Cannock Chase and South Staffordshire forming a West Staffordshire Unitary, and Stoke-on-Trent, Staffs Moorlands, East Staffs, Lichfield and Tamworth merging into an East Staffordshire Unitary.
Who supports it: Staffordshire County Council
Pros: The proposal would result in two councils of roughly equal size – a more even division than the north-south split without boundary changes – with both unitaries potentially being financially sustainable (although there would still be concerns over Stoke-on-Trent’s debts).
Cons: An east-west split does not align with the existing economic or social geography of Staffordshire – Stoke-on-Trent, for example, has far closer ties to Newcastle than it does to Tamworth (although supporters say each of the council areas would take in the A50 and M6 economic corridors respectively).
Newcastle Unitary Council, North Staffordshire Unitary Council, South West Staffordshire Unitary Council and South East Staffordshire Unitary Council
This proposal would see Newcastle have its unitary council covering the existing borough area. Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire Moorlands would combine into North Staffordshire, with an east-west split in the south, resulting in four unitary councils.
Who supports it: Newcastle Borough Council
Pros: The proposal would allow Newcastle to retain its local identity and a smaller, more responsive council, with the rest of Staffordshire merging into larger unitaries in line with other authorities’ preferences.
Cons: Newcastle’s population is only 128,000, which is far below the size recommended for the new unitaries by government. The proposal would also offer the least amount of financial savings.
