PLANS to reorganise local government have been branded a “no-win” situation.
Moves are ongoing to abolish two-tier council areas and replace them with unitary authorities.
It would mean Lichfield District Council and Staffordshire County Council being axed in favour of a larger body responsible for all services such as care, highways, bin collections and schools.
But national reports have suggested the potential savings of such a scheme may not materialise.
A previous report had suggested rolling out unitary authorities across the country could bring £2.9billion of savings over five years – but the BBC has suggested new analysis could end up costing £850million over the five years depending on the number of new councils created.
Responding to the new reports, Cllr Tim Oliver, chair of the County Councils Network, said that “efficiency savings” could be made if reorganisation was “delivered at the right scale”.
He added:
“We remain concerned over the potential costs of reorganisation where proposals seek to replace the two-tier system with multiple small unitary councils.
“Our recent report showed that splitting county areas into unitary councils with populations as small as 300,000 will create unsustainable new costs for local taxpayers.
“While it may be necessary for some areas to create more than one new council, it is absolutely essential that the government scrutinise and rigorously evaluate all proposals against their own statutory criteria, including ensuring new councils are the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks.”
A number of proposals are on the table in Staffordshire, including a single, county-wide body and an alternative which would see smaller unitaries covering between three and six existing district, town and borough council areas.
Cllr Doug Pullen, leader of Lichfield District Council, said the uncertainty showed the risks of shaking up local government.
“The Government has created a no-win situation for itself.
“It either creates huge councils and damages local democracy, or it accepts that the promised savings will not likely materialise.
“If these plans do go ahead, I will continue to fight for the very best possible outcome for our residents in the district.”
