|
Post by torremark on Jun 1, 2019 11:47:56 GMT
The criteria for creating unitary authorities, especially the minimum population requirement, are arbitrary and not backed by credible evidence. They stifle localism and ignore urban realities. For example Berkshire set up too many small authorities whereas Cornwall is to big.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 1, 2019 18:13:40 GMT
That is an abomination. Northampton has a population of over 200,000 and should be a unitary in its own right. What is the population requirement for a unitary authority these days? Hartlepool and Darlington are both unitaries and have both populations of only around 100,000. I wonder how much this is actually to do with the finances of the district councils involved and the redistribution of the Northants CC debt mountain.
|
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by ricmk on Jun 1, 2019 23:52:14 GMT
As a near-local, I think evergreenadam may be on the money. If you just have a unitary for Northampton, what do you do with the rest of the county? Two further unitaries would be the smallest for miles around (pace Rutland) and really would struggle to sustain themselves. One unitary for the rest might have the numbers, but you'd then end up with a relatively rich Northampton with all the business rates from the county town, and no rural hinterland (i.e. cost) and the "Northamptonshire except Northampton" would I suspect be in danger of going down the same path as the County Council with all the costs but none of the income from Northampton. You'd also have issues around strategic planning as Northampton is growing into its surroundings, and all the transport links into Northampton would mostly cover the 'other' unitary and benefit Northampton. The county is probably just big enough to work as a single unitary (unlike Bucks in my view) but that's not an option as it would be rewarding the failures of the county council. So unless you're REALLY prepared to be radical and start splitting bits of Northamptonshire off to neighbouring counties (Milton Keynes could potentially absorb some of South Northants, Towcester and Brackley area - we could potentially grow along the A5 corridor in future) then however lame this proposal seems, I'm not convinced any of the other options are any better.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jun 2, 2019 1:15:10 GMT
Four unitaries would be fine. Northampton 225,000. Daventry (inc SN) 174,000. Kettering & Corby 169,000. East Northants (inc Wb) 172,000.
As torremark points out, when the move to UAs started, the acceptable size was about 125,000. As time has gone on, and the government has become obsessed with using reorganisation as a way of saving as much money as possible, the UAs have got bigger and bigger, to the point where they make little or no cohesive sense.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 2, 2019 12:05:51 GMT
Four unitaries would be fine. Northampton 225,000. Daventry (inc SN) 174,000. Kettering & Corby 169,000. East Northants (inc Wb) 172,000. As torremark points out, when the move to UAs started, the acceptable size was about 125,000. As time has gone on, and the government has become obsessed with using reorganisation as a way of saving as much money as possible, the UAs have got bigger and bigger, to the point where they make little or no cohesive sense. Size was not the only criterion; many former county boroughs received unitary authority status even if their population was below 125,000 (e.g. Torbay).
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jun 3, 2019 12:38:17 GMT
A new order relevant to this thread has been published: The Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) Order 2019 (S.I. 2019/957). Creates a new unitary council within the ceremonial county of Buckinghamshire, makes transitional arrangements and provides for electoral matters. There is to be a new unitary district council called Buckinghamshire, covering the same area as the four present local government districts of Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe. This is constituted under the Local Government Act 1972 as a county without a county council. The Buckinghamshire county council and the local government districts in Buckinghamshire are all abolished with effect from 1st April 2020. No by-elections are to be held to fill vacancies on these councils which arise after 30th September 2019. Between 1st April 2020 and the 2020 local government elections, there is to be a shadow Buckinghamshire council which is made up of the present Buckinghamshire county councillors and district councillors for Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe, plus persons elected to those councils in by-elections between now and 30th September 2019 (inclusive). Elections to Buckinghamshire council are to be held in 2020, 2025 and every fourth year thereafter. Accordingly the 2023 parish council elections within Dorset district are postponed to 2025, and the 2027 parish council elections are postponed to 2029. The May 2020 elections to Buckinghamshire council will be held on new wards which are the same as the present Buckinghamshire county council divisions, with each ward electing three councillors.
|
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 3,656
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 3, 2019 12:50:40 GMT
Even more horrific than Dorset.
|
|
|
Post by Yaffles on Jun 3, 2019 12:57:52 GMT
Even more horrific than Dorset. Genuine question - what makes you say that? This proposal seems to make sense to me if one accepts that districts are on the way out.
|
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 3,656
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 3, 2019 13:01:06 GMT
Even more horrific than Dorset. Genuine question - what makes you say that? This proposal seems to make sense to me if one accepts that districts are on the way out. I don't. Well, I accept it's happening but I don't accept that it should happen? At least Dorset was (sort of) geographically contained and was mostly loads of small villages and hamlets. This authority will stretch from Slough to Milton Keynes and take in several towns in their own right -that are perfectly able to govern themselves. If UAs are to be dictated the Berks model would've been better here.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 3, 2019 13:08:57 GMT
My preferred solution for Buckinghamshire is to have two unitary councils covering the whole county North Bucks: Milton Keynes UA and Aylesbury Vale DC South Bucks: Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe DCs, Slough UA and that part of Windsor & Maidenhead UA which is North of the Thames
|
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 3,656
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 3, 2019 13:13:53 GMT
My preferred solution for Buckinghamshire is to have two unitary councils covering the whole county North Bucks: Milton Keynes UA and Aylesbury Vale DC South Bucks: Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe DCs, Slough UA and that part of Windsor & Maidenhead UA which is North of the ThamesEton! What a good idea
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,169
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 3, 2019 13:14:23 GMT
Genuine question - what makes you say that? This proposal seems to make sense to me if one accepts that districts are on the way out. I don't. Well, I accept it's happening but I don't accept that it should happen? At least Dorset was (sort of) geographically contained and was mostly loads of small villages and hamlets. This authority will stretch from Slough to Milton Keynes and take in several towns in their own right -that are perfectly able to govern themselves. If UAs are to be dictated the Berks model would've been better here. Having been brought up in the county I think it's bizarre. It wasn't broken and didn't need fixing. The patchwork quilt of local government which has hardly any power anyway is risible. Sweep the lot away, establish some basic principles and start again. And if that means not giving it any power don't dignify it with scores of councillors scurrying around complaining about potholes and dogshit.
|
|
|
Post by Yaffles on Jun 3, 2019 13:14:32 GMT
Genuine question - what makes you say that? This proposal seems to make sense to me if one accepts that districts are on the way out. I don't. Well, I accept it's happening but I don't accept that it should happen? At least Dorset was (sort of) geographically contained and was mostly loads of small villages and hamlets. This authority will stretch from Slough to Milton Keynes and take in several towns in their own right -that are perfectly able to govern themselves. If UAs are to be dictated the Berks model would've been better here. Whether they should be abolished or not is a different question. But Buckinghamshire is a daft shape anyway so whatever model is adopted will have oddities, however my view is the proposed unitary is a reasonable size in terms of population and geography (by global or even European standards our counties are perfectly manageable) My solution to the issue of local decision making would involve empowering parish councils.
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 3, 2019 13:28:57 GMT
There are a number of difficulties with small unitaries. First. they can have difficulty in recruiting the best professional leadership. Secondly, they struggle with managing the full range of services (though that can be covered by partnerships). Thirdly, they are particularly exposed on financial choices with money tight and having to be locked disproportionately into funding central overheads. All these don't necessarily lead to a poor council but it makes it a little more likely. I wouldn't back a unitary with less than 200,000 population and even that I'd regard as low and needing careful testing.
Bluntly politics plays a big part in this. Ministers and their advisers can be forgiven for looking at the likely political configuration of the beasts they are stitching together. You also find (Rutland was certainly like this) that foolish traditional loyalties and lobbying messages get some reward.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,169
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 3, 2019 13:32:50 GMT
There are a number of difficulties with small unitaries. First. they can have difficulty in recruiting the best professional leadership. Secondly, they struggle with managing the full range of services (though that can be covered by partnerships). Thirdly, they are particularly exposed on financial choices with money tight and having to be locked disproportionately into funding central overheads. All these don't necessarily lead to a poor council but it makes it a little more likely. I wouldn't back a unitary with less than 200,000 population and even that I'd regard as low and needing careful testing. Bluntly politics plays a big part in this. Ministers and their advisers can be forgiven for looking at the likely political configuration of the beasts they are stitching together. You also find (Rutland was certainly like this) that foolish traditional loyalties and lobbying messages get some reward. Yes. And in consequence what we have is an utter dysfunctional mess.
|
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 3,656
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 3, 2019 13:38:40 GMT
I agree on sweeping the lot away. Firstly, we should use 1974 as a base year and reform from there. Have a mix of counties with empowered, sometimes slightly larger, parishes and county boroughs covering towns & cities.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,176
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jun 3, 2019 13:45:14 GMT
Bluntly politics plays a big part in this. Ministers and their advisers can be forgiven for looking at the likely political configuration of the beasts they are stitching together. You also find (Rutland was certainly like this) that foolish traditional loyalties and lobbying messages get some reward. The best solution for Rutland would have been the "Perth and Kinross" model of pre-1975 Scotland, where both Perthshire and Kinross-shire were dignified with the status of counties, but were administered by a joint county council*. What rankled most of all to Rutlanders was the demotion to "district" status under Leicestershire.
* A similar arrangement existed for Morayshire and Nairnshire, however Ross-shire and Cromartyshire had been amalgamated into a single county in 1890 to become Ross and Cromarty.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jun 3, 2019 14:10:20 GMT
My preferred solution for Buckinghamshire is to have two unitary councils covering the whole county North Bucks: Milton Keynes UA and Aylesbury Vale DC South Bucks: Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe DCs, Slough UA and that part of Windsor & Maidenhead UA which is North of the Thames There's something to be said for putting Slough back into Buckinghamshire ceremonial county, but it isn't a priority. As far as Buckinghamshire under current boundaries is concerned, MK should stay separate. Combining it with AV would create an odd mix of MK, Aylesbury and the villages. The character of AV is different from the three districts in the Chilterns, so the alternative plan is the one I would've gone for: Milton Keynes 250,000 Aylesbury Vale 175,000 Chiltern Hundreds 330,000 Possibly adding the Princes Risborough area (12,000) to AV to even things up a bit. But surprise, surprise the govt has again gone for the cheaper option. www.mymarlow.co.uk/2018/11/unitary-council-decision/
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,632
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 3, 2019 14:23:38 GMT
There is to be a new unitary district council called Buckinghamshire, covering the same area as the four present local government districts of Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe. This is constituted under the Local Government Act 1972 as a county without a county council. Why a county-wide district council with no county council? Why not a county-wide county council with no districts? I thought the process was that where you abolished the county functions and a district took them over you had a unitary district (York, Hull), but where you abolished the districts and had a county taking over district functions you had a unitary county (Northumberland, East Riding).
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,176
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jun 3, 2019 15:02:28 GMT
There is to be a new unitary district council called Buckinghamshire, covering the same area as the four present local government districts of Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe. This is constituted under the Local Government Act 1972 as a county without a county council. Why a county-wide district council with no county council? Why not a county-wide county council with no districts? I thought the process was that where you abolished the county functions and a district took them over you had a unitary district (York, Hull), but where you abolished the districts and had a county taking over district functions you had a unitary county (Northumberland, East Riding). It's probably got something to do with MK already having been hived off into a unitary district while still being part of ceremonial Bucks.
|
|