Agenda item

Local Government Reorganisation All Member Engagement Session Supported by Mutual Ventures

A presentation will be provided to Members at the meeting.

 

Minutes:

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.

 

 

 

RESOLVED that the Local Government Reorganisation All Member Engagement Session Supported by Mutual Ventures be noted.</AI9>