Oakham Meeting Focuses on Rutland's Unitary Future
.JPG)
Alicia Kearns MP held her third public meeting on Monday, March 24th, 2024, at Victoria Hall in Oakham, to discuss the government's proposals for local government reform. The meeting, entitled "The Future Of Our County," centered on the potential scrapping of two-tier authorities in favour of new unitary authorities with significantly larger populations – a minimum of 380,000, with a target of 500,000 – and the introduction of Unitary and Combined Authority Mayors.
Alicia began by outlining the timeline of events since the government officially announced its proposals in December 2024. She detailed how, in January 2025, Rutland County Council Leader Gale Waller had signed a joint letter with Leicestershire County Council and the Mayor of Leicester, signaling agreement with the reorganisation. This was followed by a Rutland County Council meeting in February where resolutions were passed, emphasising the need for a public vote and consultation before any proposal was sent to central government by the end of March.
However, Kearns pointed out that despite these resolutions, the March meeting of Rutland County Council concluded without any public consultation having taken place. Following this, Leicestershire County Council published its proposal, suggesting a merger of South Lincolnshire with Rutland, alongside a separate proposal for Leicester City.
The Alicia then provided an overview of the discussions and decisions in neighboring areas. She noted the "pretty hot debate" at a South Kesteven District Council meeting the previous week, where a significant number of votes were cast regarding their stance on the proposals. Similarly, Lincolnshire County Council had held a meeting allowing members to vote on their council's preferred path forward. Kearns also informed attendees that North Leicestershire Council had published its proposal just days before, on March 21st.
Crucially, Alicia announced that all the various proposals from local authorities had been submitted to central government on March 21st. She shared that the government had written to her, stating they would provide feedback to all councils on April 28th this year. Kearns explained this feedback process as an opportunity for local authorities to contribute their ideas to the government's plans.
A significant point raised by Alicia was the upcoming local elections in Leicestershire and Lincolnshire in May. She expressed concern that these elections could result in three new councils composed of members with potentially conflicting views and opinions, which could complicate the reorganisation process.
Looking ahead, Alicia highlighted Rutland County Council's intention to conduct public consultation and engagement from May throughout the summer. This engagement is crucial as the council prepares its detailed proposal, which must be submitted to central government by November 28th.
The timeline for further government action was also discussed. Alicia explained that from January 2026 to April 2026, the government will undertake a statutory consultation period on the proposed mayoralties. This consultation aims to gather public preferences regarding which mayoral area each county would like to be part of. A final government decision on the reorganisation is expected sometime between May 2026 and August 2026, with the government aiming to establish devolution priority areas by April 2027 and create 185 new councils by April 2028.
.JPG)
Rutland's Unitary Future: Proposed Options and Implications
During the public meeting at Victoria Hall, Alicia Kearns MP delved into the specific proposals submitted to the government concerning Rutland's future within the local government reorganisation. She emphasised that while three core options have been presented, the government may consider further variations.
The submitted options are:
North Leicestershire and Rutland: A joint proposal by Rutland County Council and seven district and borough councils within Leicestershire.
South Leicestershire: A separate unitary authority proposal for the southern Leicestershire districts.
City of Leicester (Existing Boundaries): Maintaining the City of Leicester's current boundaries as a standalone unitary authority.
Focusing on the first option, Kearns explained that the "North Leicestershire and Rutland" proposal outlines the creation of three unitary authorities:
Unitary One (North Leicestershire and Rutland): This would comprise North Leicestershire, Rutland, Charnwood, North West Leicestershire, and Melton Borough Council, alongside Rutland County Council.
Unitary Two (South Leicestershire): This would consist of Blaby, Harborough, Hinckley and Bosworth, and Oadby and Wigston Councils.
Unitary Three (City of Leicester): Retaining the City of Leicester's existing boundaries.
The proposal also envisions a Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland Mayor, overseeing the entire region. Alicia highlighted Rutland County Council's public statement, which explicitly endorses the North Leicestershire and Rutland option as the most beneficial for the region.
Alicia then detailed the potential implications of the North Leicestershire and Rutland unitary authority. This new authority would serve approximately 418,000 people and, according to the proposal, align with existing health and police authority boundaries. The proposal also claims potential annual savings of £48 million. However, Alicia noted that this figure is contested by Leicester City Council, which estimates savings of only £17 million. The initial cost of establishing the proposed authority is estimated at £18.6 million, excluding the costs associated with creating the mayoralty.
A significant financial consideration for Rutland residents is the potential for council tax equalisation. Alicia stated that Rutland could see a 9.9% reduction in council tax, resulting in an estimated £219 annual saving for a Band D property. The new authority would likely be represented by 80 councillors, with 8 representing Rutland.
The proposal also outlines strategic growth corridors, including North plus Woolfox. This would involve increased housing development, with plans to collaborate with Leicester City to address their housing shortfall. The primary growth areas identified are Hinckley and Melton Mowbray.
Regarding housing growth, the proposed authority would need to accommodate 96,864 new homes. In Rutland, significant development is anticipated near the A1 at the Woolfox site, with plans for 5,000 new homes. Additionally, development at St. George's Barracks is planned, although the precise number of homes to be built remains unspecified. Kearns noted that the proposal only states the county council's commitment to the site.
South Kesteven, North Kesteven, South Holland and Rutland: An Alternative Proposal
Continuing her presentation at the Victoria Hall public meeting, Alicia Kearns addressed a separate joint proposal put forward by South Kesteven, North Kesteven, South Holland, and Rutland councils. This alternative envisions a different configuration for unitary authorities in the region, including Rutland. Rutland County Council did not work with the councils on this proposal.
The options presented under this proposal are:
Unitary One: South Kesteven, North Kesteven, South Holland, and Rutland.
Unitary Two: Boston, City of Lincoln, East Lindsey, and West Lindsey Councils.
Unitary Three: North East Lincolnshire Council and North Lincolnshire Council.
This proposal suggests a Lincolnshire and Rutland Mayoralty, overseeing the newly formed unitary authorities.
Alicai pointed out that this configuration would create a unitary authority serving approximately 405,000 people. However, she raised a significant concern regarding alignment with existing health and police authority boundaries. She specifically mentioned her visits to Peterborough Hospital, which currently falls under the Cambridgeshire health authority, suggesting a potential disconnect if Rutland were to be grouped with Lincolnshire.
Similar to the Leicestersshire proposal, this option also includes a promise of council tax equalisation for Rutland residents, although the specific percentage reduction was not detailed in this part of the meeting. The potential number of councillors for this larger unitary authority is estimated to be between 60 and 95, with Rutland again expected to be represented by 8 councillors.
Alicia described this proposed authority as predominantly rural, highlighting the potential for improved cross-border housing planning across the participating districts. On a more positive note, she noted that this proposal aligns with the existing local enterprise partnership, suggesting potential benefits for the regional economy, and also mirrors the current parliamentary constituency boundaries.
The presentation of this alternative proposal highlights the complexity of the local government reorganisation and the various options being considered, each with its own set of potential benefits and drawbacks for Rutland and its residents. The differing population sizes, alignments with existing services, and financial implications underscore the importance of the upcoming public consultation in shaping Rutland's future.
The Controversial "Doughnut" Proposal: One Leicester and Leicestershire
Alicia Kearns then moved on to discuss the third proposal, dubbed "One Leicester and Leicestershire," which originated from the Mayor of Leicester and Leicester City Council. The audience's reaction to this proposal was described as laughter, indicating a lack of enthusiasm.
Alicia reminded attendees of its somewhat unusual structure, often referred to as "the doughnut." This proposal suggests:
Unitary One: Expanded City Council. This would involve significantly expanding the boundaries of Leicester City.
Unitary Two: All Leicestershire and Rutland. This would encompass the entirety of Leicestershire and Rutland as a single unitary authority.
A Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Mayoralty. This mayoral role would oversee both unitary authorities.
Despite the initial reaction from the audience, Kearns acknowledged that this proposal technically meets all the government's requirements for population size, serving approximately 578,000 people. It also aligns with the existing Health Authority and police boundaries. The proposal claims potential annual savings of £34 million, with an estimated delivery cost of £22 million.
A key element of this proposal is the significant expansion of Leicester City's border. Notably, the Mayor of Leicester has not committed to any council tax equalisation for residents outside the current city boundaries. There is also no indication of the potential number of councillors in the expanded city authority or the Leicestershire and Rutland unitary authority.
The strategic growth corridor under this proposal would see the City acquire the business rates from areas like Fosse Park, which currently fall outside its boundaries. The proposal also anticipates increased housing development.
However, Alicia emphasised the lack of support for this proposal from both Leicestershire County Council and Rutland County Council. She then displayed a map illustrating the proposed new boundaries, describing it as a "countryside land grab" due to the Mayor's "massive proposed boundary increase." Alicia further highlighted the Mayor's ambition to build 32,000 new homes, including 18,000 affordable homes, within this expanded city area.
The "doughnut" proposal, with its significant boundary changes and lack of commitment to council tax equalisation, appears to be a contentious option, particularly for those residing outside the current city limits. The strong reaction from the public at the meeting underscores the potential impact and the concerns surrounding this particular vision for the future of local government in the region.
.JPG)
Leicestershire County Council's Solo Proposal: A Future Without Rutland?
Alicia Kearns then presented Leicestershire County Council's independent proposal, which notably excludes Rutland from its unitary authority plans. The proposal outlines:
Unitary One: City Council boundaries unchanged. This maintains the status quo for Leicester City.
Unitary Two: All Leicestershire (No Rutland). This would create a single unitary authority covering the entirety of Leicestershire, excluding Rutland.
A Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Mayoralty. Despite excluding Rutland from its unitary structure, the proposal still includes Rutland within the mayoral combined authority.
Alicia explained the reasons behind Leicestershire County Council's decision to omit Rutland from its unitary plans. She highlighted concerns regarding the lack of involvement from all Rutland County Councillors in the discussions, the perceived delay in Rutland County Council publishing draft minutes, and comments made on social media.
However, Alicia pointed out that Rutland is not entirely absent from Leicestershire County Council's proposal. She cited an example where the document states, "If Rutland was to be part of us," indicating an awareness of the potential for Rutland's inclusion. Leicestershire County Council acknowledges that the government is unlikely to leave Rutland as a standalone entity.
Their proposal, without Rutland, would serve approximately 746,000 people. Alicia noted that including Rutland would bring that figure closer to 800,000. The proposal aligns with the health service and police boundaries. Leicestershire County Council claims it can deliver annual savings of £30 million, with a delivery cost of £17 million. Similar to other proposals, the number of councillors for this structure is not specified.
Interestingly, Leicestershire County Council has agreed to protect Rutland's ceremonial status. While Alicia hadn't mentioned this commitment in the context of the other councils' proposals, she indicated that all the other proposing bodies had also agreed to this principle, though none had detailed how this would be achieved.
A significant point of contention is the lack of agreement with either Leicester City Council or Rutland County Council on this solo proposal from Leicestershire County Council. This lack of consensus highlights the fragmented nature of the current discussions and the differing visions for the future of local government in the region.
During the public meeting, Alicia Kearns also addressed an alternative option that she referred to as the "East-West Option." She conveyed that this particular option had been discounted by Rutland County Council, a decision she expressed difficulty in understanding. Furthermore, she stated her personal belief that this option would have been more advantageous for Rutland.
Here's a breakdown of what that means in the context of the information available:
The East-West Option:
This option would likely involve a different configuration of unitary authorities, potentially dividing Leicestershire and the surrounding areas along an east-west axis, with Rutland included in one of those divisions.
From information found, there has been talk of dividing Leicestershire in to East and West Leicestershire.
Alicia Kearns's Perspective:
Alicia indicated that she felt this option would better serve Rutland's interests. This suggests that she believed it would provide Rutland with stronger representation or a more favourable alignment with neighboring areas.
She has expressed concern about the way that Rutland has been included in some of the other proposals.
Rutland County Council's Decision:
The fact that Rutland County Council had discounted this option highlights the differing perspectives among local leaders regarding the optimal future for the county.
The inclusion of this "East-West Option" in Alicia's presentation underscores the complexity of the local government reorganisation process and the existence of multiple potential pathways forward. It also shows that there is not a complete consensus between the local MP and the local council.
Alicia Kearns then shifted the focus of the meeting to the current state of affairs, addressing the question: "Where does this leave us?" She referenced Rutland County Council's publicly stated position, found on their website, which reads, "We believe this joint plan with Leicestershire's district and borough councils is the best option for the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland shared area."
However, Alicia emphasised that despite the council's preferred option, the government now has a range of choices before it. "However, there are three, or if we are honest with ourselves, four options for the government to look at and decide what they want to do with Rutland," she stated
Alicia expressed her personal preference for a wider range of options to have been presented to the government, as this would have provided residents with greater choice during the upcoming public consultation period. She clarified that Rutland County Council has committed to consulting the public on all three primary proposals, but will not be including the "One Leicester Doughnut" option within its consultation. She also added that the government has the ultimate authority to select which options will be presented to the public for consultation.
Moving on to an analysis of how well each proposal protects Rutland's interests, Alicia shared her methodology. She explained that she had evaluated each proposal against six key points. She then revealed that all the submitted proposals met at least four of the points on her checklist.
This portion of the meeting highlighted the complex interplay between the local council's preferences, the government's potential decisions, and the need for public consultation. While Rutland County Council has clearly favored a particular option, Alicia made it clear that the final decision rests with the government, and that the public will have an opportunity to weigh in on multiple potential futures for their county.
Alicia Kearns then addressed the crucial issue of protecting Rutland's ceremonial status, a topic of significant concern for many residents. She began by sharing information she had received from the government. "The government has stated informally to both her and the leader of Rutland County Council, 'of course we want to protect your ceremonial status,'" she reported.
However, Alicia expressed her skepticism, questioning the government's intentions with a direct, "How are you going to do it?" She reminded the audience that, as discussed in her previous public meeting, achieving the desired protection for Rutland would likely necessitate the creation of new legislation.
She then delivered a candid assessment of the government's stance. "The government has not given any commitment and does not want to introduce legislation," she stated, highlighting the potential gap between the government's informal assurances and its willingness to take concrete action.
Alicia emphasised the importance of the ongoing petition to save Rutland's ceremonial status. She stressed that the petition needs to be completed by April 1st, 2025, to allow her sufficient time to present it to Parliament.
Alicia Kearns then addressed the crucial question of public participation, focusing on "When Will You Get Your Say?" She began by expressing her candid dissatisfaction with Rutland County Council's handling of the situation. "I have been quite honest with all," she stated, "I have been very unhappy with Rutland County Council."
Her primary concerns centered on the council's submission of a single proposal without prior community engagement or a vote from the councillors. She directly challenged the council's claims of community engagement, questioning the evidence and stating, "I am not sure how or where that was addressed."
Alicia further highlighted the limited opportunity for public input, pointing out the existence of a "only a two-question survey on Rutland County Council's website." She urged attendees to visit the council's website and make their voices heard.
Despite her criticisms, Alicia acknowledged Rutland County Council's commitment to holding public consultations. She reiterated that the council had promised to provide opportunities for residents to express their views on the proposed changes.
This portion of the meeting served as a direct call to action, encouraging residents to engage with the consultation process and hold their local council accountable. It also made clear the frustration felt by the local MP, regarding the perceived lack of community involvement.
Alicia Kearns then opened the floor to the residents for questions and comments, titling this segment "Over to You." She posed a series of questions to guide the discussion, asking: "What is best for Rutland? What Local Council Do You Want? Your Views on the proposals? Your Priorities and concerns? and any questions?"
Before the discussion commenced, Kearns extended a "big thank you" to Rob Persani of Rutland and Stamford Sound for providing the necessary microphones and speakers for the meeting.
The ensuing question and answer session revealed a range of opinions and concerns among the attendees. Several residents voiced their belief that Rutland should forge stronger connections with Stamford and Lincolnshire, citing their ancient historical ties. One individual inquired about the possibility of reviving the "East-West option," which Alicia Kearns had previously mentioned. Alicia responded by reminding the resident that the council had already made its decision regarding the proposals to be submitted to the government.
Concerns were raised regarding the existing divisions within the health service and the adequacy of provision for Rutland. Doubts were also expressed about Rutland County Council's capacity to effectively manage consultations and ensure genuine public engagement, with some questioning whether residents' opinions would truly be considered. Alicia Kearns suggested that residents directly contact their local councillors to voice their concerns.
A moment of levity occurred when a resident introduced himself as a newcomer to Rutland. Alicia Kearns jokingly replied, "Does that mean you moved here twenty years ago?" This elicited laughter and highlighted a common local perception where long-term residents often consider those who have lived in Rutland for decades as relative newcomers.
The discussion also acknowledged the distinct rural character of Rutland, with residents emphasising the need to preserve this identity. Many attendees expressed disappointment with Rutland County Council's handling of the reorganisation process, with one resident stating that "we must fight." the resident went further, expressing hope for Rutland County Council's dissolution, while yet another described the council's actions since the last election as "disastrous for Rutland."
A concern was raised about the potential impact of a general election being called on the reorganisation process. Alicia Kearns responded by stating that such an event was unlikely. In response to another question, she clarified that while the Conservative party generally supports the introduction of mayors, it was up to individual MPs to work within their local areas regarding the local government reorganisation.
Finally, a resident emphasised the critical importance of public attendance at Rutland County Council meetings to ensure councillors are properly representing their constituents. She noted the poor attendance at the last council meeting and described meeting as "poor," underscoring the need for greater public engagement in local governance.
Alicia's public meeting provided an important platform for residents to understand the complex and evolving situation surrounding the future of local government in the region, and the potential impact on Rutland. The upcoming public consultation by Rutland County Council will be a vital opportunity for residents to have their voices heard as this significant transformation unfolds.
