|
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION ALL
MEMBER ENGAGEMENT SESSION SUPPORTED BY MUTUAL
VENTURES
The Chief Executive commenced the
Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) item by introducing Professor
Donna Hall, CBE and Sally Dickens from Mutual Ventures (MV) who
were supporting an appraisal of the options under consideration in
Worcestershire for LGR. It was
explained to the Board that the purpose of the briefing was to have
an engagement session to ensure that all Members had an opportunity
to input and provide their views. It was on this basis that
all Members of Bromsgrove District Council had been invited to the
session. All Members could also send
their views using the response form provided by Mutual Ventures or
by emailing their views in whatever format they chose.
A presentation was delivered in respect of this
subject for Members’ consideration (Appendix 1). The following key points were discussed for
Members’ consideration:
The options appraisal process was to assess the
performance of two options for a unitary structure in
Worcestershire:
·
A unitary council for the whole county of
Worcestershire.
·
Two unitary councils in Worcestershire:
o
North Worcestershire: Bromsgrove, Redditch and Wyre
Forest.
o
South Worcestershire: Malvern Hills, Worcester City
and Wychavon.
A stakeholder engagement process was being
carried out to inform the appraisal process which included a public
engagement exercise being undertaken online, until 29th
June 2025 and local stakeholder engagement sessions being held
during June and July.
Key lines of enquiry would be discussed as part
of the stakeholder engagement process to establish the performance
of these options in comparison to the Ministry of Housing,
Communities and Local Government’s (MHCLG) criteria for
LGR. The criteria had been detailed in
correspondence to the Leader and Chief Executive in respect of LGR
and included the following:
-
The establishment of a single tier of local
government.
-
The right size to achieve efficiencies, improve
capacity and withstand financial shocks.
-
Must prioritise the delivery of high quality and
sustainable public services to citizens.
-
Demonstrate how councils in the area had sought to
work together in coming to a view that meets local needs and is
informed by local views.
-
Must support devolution arrangements.
-
Should enable stronger community engagement and
deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood
empowerment.
The approach to be utilised included
considering:-
·
What good looks like in ten years’
time.
·
To consider what needs to be kept/improved/created
to achieve the above.
·
Identifying local characteristics.
·
Consideration of community engagement and
neighbourhood empowerment.
Members were advised to consider structural
reform from a public service perspective and to review changes to
current arrangements. The Board also
considered the demographic and economic comparisons within the
Worcestershire area and in relation to Bromsgrove
specifically.
The key lines of enquiry, which had been
presented to Members, were subsequently discussed with the
following points raised by the Board:
Health and Wellbeing
·
Preventative measures should be a key
consideration.
·
Building and maintaining health and wellbeing was
important.
·
People were living longer. Patient to doctor ratios required
improvements.
·
Additional surgical facilities were
required.
·
Some people had lower expectations than in previous
generations but were striving and aspiring to achieve
better.
·
There were difficulties predicting future
efficiencies due to the need for more data. The Chief Executive
explained that the data in the slide deck (by way of context) was
to help fuel discussion, and it was Members’ feedback from
their experience and knowledge as democratically elected
representatives of their communities, that was being sought from
the session. This was to provide
important qualitative information, alongside quantitative
information that was also being gathered to help inform the options
appraisal.
Education and
Opportunity
·
Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)
support, currently available through Worcestershire County Council
(WCC), would continue to be needed in the District.
·
There were good examples of effective partnership
working with WCC to promote and enhance health and wellbeing within
the community i.e. the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP), which
included organisations from the public, private, voluntary and
community sectors.
·
There were difficulties predicting future
efficiencies due to a lack of funding from Central
Government.
Social
Cohesion
·
Local identity was seen as important.
Transport and
Connectivity
·
Required better connectivity between the outer
parishes and the town centre to support the elderly.
·
There was a lack of connectivity to the town centre
which had an impact on people’s mental health.
·
Examples of best practice suggested by Members were
as follows; Tourist Information Centre (closed), Avoncroft Museum,
The Transport Museum and Chapel Lane Caravan Motorhome Club
Campsite.
·
Members suggested that the Council should be
building on the strong tourist opportunities available i.e. The
National Exhibition Centre (NEC) and the proposed 8 Hills Regional
Park.
Economic
Growth
·
Economic growth was key to address all the suggested
key lines of enquiry.
·
A cohesive approach to generate wealth was a
priority.
·
A unitary structure could assist to provide
effective business support to startup businesses.
·
Bromsgrove District Council (BDC) had one of the
highest achieving business starts ups in the County with assistance
from BetaDen; a locally funded organisation aiming to benefit
businesses and entrepreneurs by providing resources, mentorship and
access to a network of support.
·
To start from the grass roots and upskill the
younger generation was a key priority.
·
BDC offered good public service
engagement. Retaining the town
centre’s local community feel was important, which could
diminish if the unitary structure was too large.
·
To retain the town centres and areas local heritage
should be a consideration.
·
Encouraging people to live and work locally, rather
than commute to work, was considered to be important.
·
Working cohesively should assist the agricultural
sector.
·
Discouraging shop units which had a negative impact
on the reputation of Bromsgrove Town Centre was considered to be
important.
Safety and Security
·
A unitary structure should assist with providing
effective police engagement.
·
The Police needed to provide effective face to face
public engagement and a physical presence.
Environment
·
Bromsgrove’s agriculture and local environment
were noted as important features of relevance to the character of
the area. This was seen as important to
retain and champion.
Members were also encouraged to consider and
discuss community engagement with the following points provided by
the Board:
·
Being able to engage effectively with communities
was seen as important.
·
Public/stakeholder engagement should incorporate
face to face opportunities where possible in addition to online to
help gather evidence.
·
Set boundaries needed to be balanced democratically
for ease of Member engagement.
·
Parish Councils played a key role in public
engagement in their own right. The
Chief Executive reassured Members that Parish Councils would remain
under a unitary council.
·
Concerns were raised that having larger divisional
boundaries could have a detrimental effect on public
engagement.
The Chief Executive encouraged Members to
complete and return the response forms which had been issued during
the session and confirmed that the deadline for submission of
completed forms was Tuesday 8th July 2025. Members were also informed that Group Leaders
would have the opportunity to meet with Mutual Ventures for further
discussions, so they could pass on views to their Group Leaders if
they wished and if Members simply wanted to email in any feedback,
then that was also welcomed.
The Chief Executive concluded the briefing by
thanking Members for their participation in discussions and Mutal
Ventures for their presentation and engagement session.
The Board were also reminded of the LGR timeline
as follows:
·
28th November 2025 – Deadline for
final proposals to MHCLG.
·
First part of 2026 – Government public
consultation on LGR.
·
Summer 2026 – Government anticipated decision
on the proposals.
|