Rutland County Council's Leader Backs Three-Unitary Model in Local Government Reorganisation
Last night, Rutland County Council convened a special meeting to address the ongoing local government reorganisation efforts, focusing on a proposed restructuring alongside Leicestershire's district and borough councils. The meeting, led by Council Leader Gail Waller, centred on an interim plan advocating for a three-unitary authority model, diverging from Leicestershire County Council's preferred two-council structure.
The core of the discussion revolved around the interim plan, which is slated for submission by the March 21st deadline. This plan, an emerging preferred model, proposes the creation of three unitary authorities:
North Leicestershire and Rutland: Encompassing Charnwood, North West Leicestershire, Melton, and Rutland.
South Leicestershire: Including Blaby, Harborough, Hinckley & Bosworth, and Oadby & Wigston.
Leicester City: Retaining its current unitary status.
This model contrasts sharply with Leicestershire County Council's proposal for a single unitary authority covering the entire county, excluding Leicester City and Rutland.
Rutland County Council, along with the seven Leicestershire district and borough councils, firmly believes that the three-unitary model offers several key advantages. They argue that a single, large unitary authority would be "too cumbersome, too remote, and inaccessible for local communities," potentially leading to increased costs and decreased effectiveness.
The proposed three-authority structure, on the other hand, is touted for:
Creating balanced unitary councils with similar resident populations.
Simplifying local government structures for greater clarity.
Enhancing local accessibility and accountability.
Aligning with existing community boundaries.
Generating significant cost savings.
Keeping planning decisions closer to communities.
Facilitating devolution and supporting a Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland mayoralty.
Providing a better balance between strategic and operational functions.
Maintaining three social care authorities.
The council acknowledged that factors such as population demographics, commuting patterns, economic opportunities, and future service demands were considered in developing this interim plan.
Crucially, the council emphasised the importance of preserving Rutland's ceremonial arrangements, including the roles of the Lord Lieutenant and High Sheriff. Assurances were given that the necessary legislative measures would be pursued.
The meeting also addressed the timeline for local government reorganisation, outlining key milestones:
March 21, 2025: Submission of interim plans.
Between March 2025 and 28th November 2025 Extensive engagement exercise held by Rutland County Council.
November 28, 2025: Deadline for final proposals.
January to April 2026: Government consultation on final proposals.
May to August 2026: Government decision on final proposals.
September to December 2026: Preparation and laying of reorganisation legislation.
May to December 2027: Preparation and laying of transitional legislation.
May 2027: Elections for shadow unitary authorities.
April 2028: Implementation of new unitary authorities.
The council also addressed that South Kesteven District council had expressed a wish to enter discussions about the reorganisation, while noting that no detailed proposals had been discussed.
The message from Rutland County Councils leader was clear: they are committed to a collaborative, evidence-based approach that prioritises the needs of their residents and communities. The council will continue to engage with stakeholders and refine its proposals in the lead-up to the final submission deadline.
Rutland Council Leader Faced Tough Questions on Reorganisation Plans
Councillor Gail Waller, Leader of Rutland County Council, faced a barrage of questions from members regarding the proposed local government reorganisation. Concerns ranged from exploring alternative options to ensuring democratic processes.
Councillor K. Payne initiated the questioning, highlighting the significant number of residents in eastern Rutland with PE postcodes who rely on Lincolnshire for services. He asked, "Many residents in the east of the county have PE postcodes, gravitate towards Lincolnshire for shopping, health and leisure facilities hence see a natural alignment with South Kesteven and Lincolnshire, therefore will be disappointed not to see an option in this area tabled tonight, so what have the executive done to further the re-organisation in this direction and why is it not for discussion tonight?" This underscored the concern that a potential Lincolnshire alignment was not being considered.
Councillor K. Corby followed up, asking, "The remit from this council and from the cross-party working group was that we should consider all options open to us. By defining and pursuing this interim proposal at this stage, are we now saying to residents that, under devolution, Rutland's future (in whatever form Local government reorganisation takes place) lies within a Mayoral Strategic Authority covering Leicestershire, Leicester City and Rutland and that any exploration of alternatives has now been discounted?" This question challenged the council's commitment to exploring all available options.
Councillor R. Powell raised concerns about the potential for multiple proposals, stating, "From the details in this paper, and reports in the media, it appears that there may be 3 different proposals submitted for the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland area, whilst the preference is for one proposal. How are we planning to engage and negotiate with Leicestershire and Leicester City on the plans, so that we present a cohesive picture or are we just accepting that we will leave Government to have the final choice of which proposal is accepted?" He questioned the council's strategy for achieving a unified proposal.
Councillor G. Clifton inquired about discussions with neighbouring councils, asking, "What discussions has the Leader of the Council or any other member of the Cabinet has had with Peterborough Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, and the Cambridgeshire District Councils, on Local Government Reform or the proposed new Mayoral Authorities since July 2024?" This sought to understand the extent of cross-border engagement.
Councillor L. Stephenson sought clarification on social care provision, asking, "‘Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland would continue to be served by three social care authorities.’ Does this mean three social care authorities based on existing borders?"
Finally, Councillor K. Heckels challenged the council's adherence to its own motion, stating, "At our last special council meeting in February, Council unanimously adopted the motion that any proposals to Government would be debated and voted on by this council...Why is Council not following its own motion by giving us all the options and holding a vote?" He referenced the council's prior commitment to a full debate and vote before submitting any proposals.
These questions highlighted significant concerns among council members regarding the scope of the reorganisation plans, the council's engagement with neighbouring authorities, and adherence to democratic processes. Councillor Waller's responses to these questions will be crucial in shaping the future direction of Rutland's involvement in the local government reorganisation.
