Two competing visions have emerged for the future political map of Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire – both will affect Stone.
Leaders at Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Staffordshire County Council have unveiled contrasting proposals for how local government across the area can be reorganised in response to the government’s devolution white paper.
At the moment, local government services in Staffordshire are split between the county council and eight district and borough councils (Stafford Borough Council in Stone’s case) – a two-tier system – while Stoke-on-Trent has a single unitary authority responsible for all services.
The Labour government wants to do away with all remaining two-tier councils and replace them with a single layer of unitaries, which it claims will be more efficient and effective. Existing councils have been invited to come up with outline proposals for ‘unitarisation’ by March 21.
In February, city council leaders published plans for a new North Staffordshire council, which would see a single unitary covering Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle and the Staffordshire Moorlands (and potentially parts of Stafford and East Staffordshire as well), leaving the south of the county free to merge into a separate unitary. County council chiefs have now proposed a Staffordshire unitary, which would effectively see the county council merge with the districts and boroughs. Under these plans, Stoke-on-Trent would remain untouched.
These two proposals are mutually incompatible, and it now seems likely that either one or the other will happen. So, how do the rival bids stack up?
Simplicity
While merging councils will always be complicated, the county council proposal has a clear advantage in this area. The creation of a North Staffordshire council would involve the ‘disaggregation’ of existing county council services, such as highways and social care, into northern and southern parts, with the northern services then being merged with Stoke-on-Trent’s.
Things would get even more complicated if parts of Stafford and East Staffordshire were included, which would mean district-level services such as bin collections also being split apart and recombined.
In contrast, the Staffordshire unitary proposal would see highways and social care within the county area continuing in the same form. District-level services would effectively be swallowed up by the county council, and there would be no changes at all for any services in Stoke-on-Trent.
As well as being cheaper and easier to implement, the county council proposal would involve less risk to service users, particularly in the area of social care. People who rely on social care are among the most vulnerable in society, and any disruption to services during the transition period could have dire consequences. This is all the more pertinent considering Stoke-on-Trent’s children’s services have only recently moved out of government intervention.
Population size
The government has said that it expects the new unitary authorities to cover populations of at least 500,000. Supporters of larger unitaries believe they can achieve greater economies of scale while also giving them the ability to act more strategically, with more financial heft and a stronger voice.
The proposed Staffordshire unitary proposed by the county council would have a population of around 875,000 – easily big enough to meet the government’s criteria. But Stoke-on-Trent City Council would be left with a population of just 260,000, far below the 500,000 threshold – it is unclear whether the government would allow smaller, existing unitaries to continue.
The proposed North Staffordshire unitary population would be around 480,000, which is more likely to be acceptable to the government, while the southern unitary would have around 650,000 people. This arrangement would also have the advantage of creating two councils of roughly similar size instead of one being much bigger than its neighbour.
Geography
In its guidance to councils, the government says that the new unitaries should cover ‘sensible economic areas’ and ‘sensible geography’ that will help to increase local housing. Stoke-on-Trent council leaders claim that North Staffordshire is already a coherent economic unit, with strong ties between the city, Newcastle and the Moorlands.
North Staffordshire’s political boundaries roughly align with the ‘travel to work area’ used by organisations such as the Office for National Statistics. City council leaders also suggest that including higher band taxpayers in Newcastle and the Moorlands will also put a North Staffordshire council on a firmer financial footing than Stoke-on-Trent on its own.
Newcastle and Moorlands councillors opposed the idea and claimed this would amount to residents in those areas being expected to subsidise services in Stoke-on-Trent. On the other hand, the county council says that a Staffordshire unitary would be more ‘recognisable’ to residents and ‘readily defined’ using existing district boundaries as the basic building block.
County council leaders are also concerned about the city council’s ‘ongoing financial distress’ and the fact that a North Staffordshire unitary would result in poorer services for residents in Newcastle and the Moorlands.
Where do they agree?
While the city and county councils disagree on local government reorganisation, they are more aligned on the issue of devolution. The government wants to introduce strategic authorities to every part of England that is not currently covered by a devolution deal.
These new strategic authorities would bring together two or more unitaries and wield devolved powers in areas such as transport, economic development and skills. The government has left it up to local areas to decide whether they want an elected mayor to run their strategic authority. Still, ministers have made it clear that the mayoral option is the only way of unlocking a full devolution package.
Leaders at the city and county councils now support the idea of a mayoral strategic authority to ensure a good devolution deal. All councils in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire had previously opposed an elected mayor, saying that the Staffordshire leaders board could act as their vehicle for devolution. The city and county councils now accept that this is no longer viable.
The county council is in favour of a Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire mayoral strategic authority, saying that the two areas share a ‘strong functional economic geography’. But it also suggests the possibility of including Shropshire and Telford and Wrekin as well – this would push the population of the strategic authority above the 1.5 million threshold recommended by the government.
The city council has suggested four different options for a strategic authority, including the Staffordshire-wide proposal. Joining with Cheshire, or Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, are other potential options.
What happens now?
The government has said it expects councils to come forward with a single set of proposals for their areas instead of rival plans – although it accepts that this may not be possible in some cases. Talks are continuing between the Staffordshire authorities, but at this stage, it seems likely that the city and county councils will be submitting separate proposals to the government.
Interim proposals have to be submitted by March 21, with a November deadline for the final plans.
What do others think?
Newcastle Borough Council leader Simon Tagg has been vocal in his opposition to the North Staffordshire unitary proposals, which he describes as a ‘power grab’ by Stoke-on-Trent. But he is also sceptical that a Staffordshire unitary will benefit residents in Newcastle.
Borough councillors in Newcastle are due to discuss the issue at a special meeting on March 19, while their counterparts in the Moorlands will do so on March 5.
Mr Tagg said:
“I understand that Staffordshire County Council has been forced to act, but looking at the proposals so far, I still cannot see an explanation of how unitary super-authorities benefit the residents of Newcastle-under-Lyme.
“Those favouring unitary authorities are already talking about the creation of more town and parish councils to complement larger super-councils and suggest that they could even run some very local services.
“How will that cut costs for the average council taxpayer? Forced reorganisation will nee paying for up-front, new or expanded town and parish councils will need funding, as will the government-led regional mayors, so that’s potentially three layers for taxpayers to fund.”
Related Posts:
