Agenda item

The Assistant Director Corporate Services and Transformation provided an update on LGR to Members.  The report outlined Bromsgrove’s position within the Government’s seven stage LGR process which was currently at Stage 3 - Statutory Consultation and closed on 26th March 2026.

The key points presented were:

• Worcestershire remained at Stage 3 of The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) process.
• Workstreams on Finance, HR, Legal, IT and Services were progressing.
• The MHCLG “Listening Meeting” took place on 11th March, supported by KPMG.
• The devolution footprint discussions had advanced with Worcestershire Leaders agreeing to a joint position with Herefordshire and exploring alignment with Warwickshire/Gloucestershire.
• Future updates may be limited until Government decisions were carried out, which was due in Summer 2026.
• LGR and Devolution remained key Corporate Risks.
• District involvement in strategic planning spatial development strategies (SDS) would be retained until at least April 2028.

The Portfolio Holder also gave a member level perspective, drawing on a recent two-day LGR training programme for Councillors, emphasising that the period should be seen as an opportunity for Members to define what they want from LGR, particularly if a One Worcestershire option were selected.  There was a need to develop a negotiating position, distinguishing what was essential for Bromsgrove’s residents and communities from what was less critical.  The Portfolio Holder explained she was keen to involve all Members in shaping these priorities and suggested that the Board, rather than an additional Cabinet Advisory Group (CAG), might be a suitable forum.

After the presentation the Board made the following comments:

• A Member expressed concern that the reference within the report to major infrastructure planning across wider geographies, highlighted how far Bromsgrove was behind in its own infrastructure planning and Local Plan work.  Specific questions were asked which included what could practically be done to catch up and when Members would see a detailed project plan, including milestones and the role of any shadow authority? – In response the Leader and Executive Director reassured Members that, in relation to Foundation Strategic Authorities (FSA) and Spatial Development Strategies (SDS), Bromsgrove was not behind with progress.  Government had not yet defined the precise FSA footprint and SDS responsibilities would initially lie with County/Unitary councils.  The immediate priority was ensuring data and assets were in good order, that the Local Plan was progressed and key assets were on a sustainable footing.

Members were also advised that the Council had set aside funding for LGR and had the risk and resilience reserve (£1m in LGR and £2.5m in Risk and Reserve), which would help fund the implementation and sustain services, including staff who may move between organisations, following a government decision. This was recognised at national events as being relatively robust compared to many councils. 

The Portfolio Holder explained also that a route map of the typical LGR stages (integration, then transformation over years 2–4) was available and would be shared with the Board.

• It was queried by Members what contingency plans were in place, should Government chose a single One Worcestershire unitary authority? – The Portfolio Holder and Assistant Director advised that whatever option the Government chose, the preparatory work was still required.  Once Government announced its decision, a Joint Committee would be formed for the new unitary area to take legal and structural decisions.  Shadow elections were expected in May 2027, with existing District Councillors continuing for an extra year to run their councils until vesting day in April 2028. The shadow authority would focus on establishing the new corporate structure, appointing senior officers and setting the first budget and Council Plan.  Bromsgrove’s priority would be to ensure its voice was heard in these discussions and to negotiate outcomes that were beneficial for the local residents.

Members expressed concern that a One Worcestershire model could be dominated by County interests and that areas such as Bromsgrove could potentially lose out on funding.  Concerns were also expressed that Councillors from other parts of the County would be making decisions on areas they did not know well. - The Portfolio Holder acknowledged these concerns and agreed that understanding “what we do not want” is just as important as defining what we do want.  The need to secure locality-based arrangements and local hubs was emphasised, ensuring decision makers had strong local knowledge and that budgets were allocated fairly across the County.

Members also queried whether Bromsgrove should make a strong case for the new northern unitary headquarters (HQ) (if there was a north/south split) to be located in Bromsgrove and if the Council could negotiate that a certain number of current district staff were taken into the new authority. – In response it was explained that staff would transfer to the shadow authority under TUPE and it would be for the shadow authority to then determine its structure and staffing.  The location of any HQ would be subject to practical considerations and to negotiate between Councils and the Government.  However, regardless of where any formal HQ might be, it was likely that hubs or local bases would be needed across the area to maintain accessible services.

• Some Members expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of past CAG meetings, feeling they had not delivered visible change and expressed the view that Overview and Scrutiny may be a better, more transparent environment for Member input.  The Portfolio Holder and Chairman agreed that Overview and Scrutiny could play a central role and welcomed suggestions on how to involve all Members in shaping negotiating priorities. 

After further discussions it was proposed and seconded that a LGR Task Group should be explored.  It was also agreed that the Portfolio Holder should play a pivotal role during discussions at the relevant meetings.

It was also agreed that LGR reporting remained a standing item on the Overview and Scrutiny Board agenda, with future reports supplemented by verbal updates from a Chief Officer as required. 

A Member also suggested and it was agreed to explore the inclusion of the Corporate Risk Register as part of future LGR reporting, as it had been highlighted in the report that devolution and LGR were listed as a Corporate Risk.

RESOLVEDthat

1)    The updates regarding the consultation responses and engagement activity; and

2)    The overview of the current position and next steps regarding Devolution were noted.