Agenda item

The Chairman reminded Members that the Board had a previously agreed to establish its own task group on LGR, however, at a subsequent Council meeting, a motion had been passed that Electoral Matters should create a relevant working group and therefore any interests from the Board should be through that route.

The Assistant Director of Corporate Services and Transformation presented the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) update to the Board.

The following key points were reported as follows:

• A significant milestone had been reached with the receipt of the decision from Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), whilst some other local authority decisions had been delayed.
• The letter from MHCLG explained the reasons for the decision with references to housing supply, the ability to provide a tailored response, local identity and the use of public consultation in shaping the proposal.
• Once the decision was received the Chief Executive held a briefing with Group Leaders, followed by an all-staff teams briefing with an impressive turnout of approximately 400 attendees.  The staff briefing included the decision, assurances, future direction and frequently asked questions (FAQ)s.  An all-member briefing had also been organised to be held for Members.
• Group Leaders across the County had agreed to start working informally and voluntarily as joint committees.
• Once the Structural Change Order (SCO) had passed through Parliament, those groups would become legislative bodies as set out in the SCO.
• External communications had been prepared for either outcome.  Messaging was focused on getting behind the decision and maintaining strong implementation and delivery pace.  The next focus would move from debating the proposal to delivering it effectively.
• The Board’s scrutiny role would be examining whether implementation plans were thorough, robust and properly resourced.
• Existing workstreams would continue, including finance, human resources, information and communication technology, legal, communications and services.  However, the services workstream would be expanded and broken down into individual service areas to consider options, costs, models and delivery approaches.
• A full-time Programme Manager and Programme Support Officer had been appointed to work across the seven authorities, initially reporting to the Assistant Director Corporate Services and Transformation.  Recruitment for an LGR Programme Director was also underway.  It was also hoped that a two-year Programme Director appointment would be made to provide vision and drive for implementation.
• In relation to the SCO, the MHCLG’s letter confirmed that initial decisions around transitional arrangements were likely to be shared in draft form with Chief Executives.  This would indicate which of the Council’s proposals had been agreed by Government and would outline the implementation team.  The letter also confirmed that existing Members whose terms would end in May 2027, would have their terms extended to vesting day.
• Feedback had been provided on the election cycle regarding the Government’s current proposed 4+1 election cycle, placing the Council out of sync with parish elections, which was not preferred.
• Feedback was also expected on warding arrangements and member numbers, with Bromsgrove District Council (BDC)  expecting to see a doubling under the proposed approach.  A boundary review engagement confirmed that a review could progress properly after the first election to the new shadow authority in May 2027.
• Feedback to Government had also discussed charter trustees for Bromsgrove, focused on preserving civic regalia and ceremonial property.
• Under the agreed North Worcestershire option, the current Chief Executive would be the Returning Officer for the relevant elections.
• Future local governance arrangements engagement had been launched.  Communities were being engaged through the website in relation to local identity and how residents might use their community voice in the future context of LGR.  This exercise would inform the case for commencing a formal community governance review and would close on 9 August 2026.
• Consideration was being given regarding Member development for the Overview and Scrutiny and Audit, Standards and Governance meetings through the LGA offer and assurance arrangements.

After consideration of the update the Board made the following comments:

• The former portfolio spoke on behalf of the current portfolio holder who had sent his apologies.  She thanked Officers for producing a strong proposal, noting that the Council had voted unanimously for the north/side option.
• If the Council were expecting any differences to the agreement, now that there has been a change in the ministerial position? – The Board were assured that Chief Executives had received communications two weeks before the decision, that the timelines would be unchanged.  It was also stated that the Council had received no communication suggesting that current Government was less committed to the programme.
• Clarity was sought of details within the report detailing the future plans for supporting adult social care, public health and children’s services, with Members querying how services would be allocated across the County area. – The Executive Director explained that some services such as children’s services might be split into two larger workstreams including integration and disaggregation. There may also be a possibility for Local Authorities and shared services to collaborate, with an example provided whereby Cumbria County Council utilised the services of the Highways Department for the purposes of disaggregation to analyse salt requirements on their roads.  The Assistant Director Corporate Services and Transformation also assured Members that Officers would be assisting staff, including Members to help familiarise staff with the details.  A joint committee would be established with responsibility to drive the details, guided by MHCLG until the shadow authority was elected. 
• Members queried how community engagement strategies were being carried out to assist residents’ awareness of the progression of LGR for residents who did not use social media, suggesting road shows as an alternative solution. – It was advised that the priority for comms was to ensure that residents understood services would be unaffected during the process to vesting day.  Members requested prompt communications to reassure residents that they would not notice any immediate change and that service delivery would not be affected.  – In response it was advised that the website had been updated immediately following the decision and the request for further reassurance would be fed back to the comms team.
• What efforts were BDC taking to secure key staff are retained within the Authority to ensure service delivery is unaffected ie HGV drivers and waste services and what was the timeline for senior staff recruitment? – The Executive Director advised that staff would not see considerable change for the foreseeable short/medium term.  Members noted that recruitment of the Chief Executive positions would be in September and Senior Manager positions in December, however, most staff would be TUPE’d over to the shadow authority.  Evidence from other Local Authorities who had been through LGR had communicated that it took several years to be fully functional.  The Executive Director advised Members that regular communication with staff was provided through the Chief Executive FAQs and the intranet’s LGR Routes.

RESOLVED that the Local Government Reform (LGR) update be noted.