peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,474 
|
Post by peterl on Jul 9, 2020 18:42:37 GMT
www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/proposal-scrap-surrey-borough-district-18563673"Surrey County Council (SCC) is considering a bid to scrap its district and borough councils in favour of becoming a unitary authority. If successful, the proposal would have a huge impact on the way decisions affecting the county are made. The plans would see the Surrey's 11 borough and district councils abolished in favour of giving the county council greater decision-making powers for issues like housing and planning applications. It would also see local parish and town councils empowered. It aims to reduce the “complexity of governance and reduce costs to the taxpayer”. MP Simon Clarke, Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government said earlier this month that the government would be proceeding with a white paper, a document setting out proposals for future legislation, to have more unitary councils in order to “boost regional economic performance”. I'm not suprised that the government want more unitaries to save money, and that considerations like ensuring that communities are properly represented are increasingly being by-passed. But wanting more unitary councils to boost economic performance? Words fail me. Councils deliver public services and provide certain regulatory functions. They have almost nothing to do with regional economic performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 9, 2020 18:51:20 GMT
Another one that's being pushed is East Sussex, where the county council has proposed becoming a unitary.
This has caused apoplexy in Hastings which is a small and increasingly strongly Labour borough but would see any chance of Labour control subsumed if the county got its way.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Jul 9, 2020 18:58:26 GMT
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,474
|
Post by peterl on Jul 9, 2020 19:07:38 GMT
Based on how long Dorset's merger took to get through, I would imagine that none of these proposals will affect next year's elections. Certainly in Dorset when there were plans to cancel the 2017 county council elections, they had to go ahead with them because of protests at such an affront to democracy, and that was almost 2 years after the proposals were first made.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 19:47:02 GMT
Each of the local councils in Lancashire are close to agreeing a new model after years of parochial back and forth.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 9, 2020 20:02:57 GMT
www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/proposal-scrap-surrey-borough-district-18563673"Surrey County Council (SCC) is considering a bid to scrap its district and borough councils in favour of becoming a unitary authority. If successful, the proposal would have a huge impact on the way decisions affecting the county are made. The plans would see the Surrey's 11 borough and district councils abolished in favour of giving the county council greater decision-making powers for issues like housing and planning applications. It would also see local parish and town councils empowered. It aims to reduce the “complexity of governance and reduce costs to the taxpayer”. MP Simon Clarke, Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government said earlier this month that the government would be proceeding with a white paper, a document setting out proposals for future legislation, to have more unitary councils in order to “boost regional economic performance”. I'm not suprised that the government want more unitaries to save money, and that considerations like ensuring that communities are properly represented are increasingly being by-passed. But wanting more unitary councils to boost economic performance? Words fail me. Councils deliver public services and provide certain regulatory functions. They have almost nothing to do with regional economic performance. Presumably this is the same Surrey County Council that needed a sweetheart deal to avoid going belly-up a few years back. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 9, 2020 20:09:35 GMT
www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/proposal-scrap-surrey-borough-district-18563673"Surrey County Council (SCC) is considering a bid to scrap its district and borough councils in favour of becoming a unitary authority. If successful, the proposal would have a huge impact on the way decisions affecting the county are made. The plans would see the Surrey's 11 borough and district councils abolished in favour of giving the county council greater decision-making powers for issues like housing and planning applications. It would also see local parish and town councils empowered. It aims to reduce the “complexity of governance and reduce costs to the taxpayer”. MP Simon Clarke, Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government said earlier this month that the government would be proceeding with a white paper, a document setting out proposals for future legislation, to have more unitary councils in order to “boost regional economic performance”. I'm not suprised that the government want more unitaries to save money, and that considerations like ensuring that communities are properly represented are increasingly being by-passed. But wanting more unitary councils to boost economic performance? Words fail me. Councils deliver public services and provide certain regulatory functions. They have almost nothing to do with regional economic performance. Presumably this is the same Surrey County Council that needed a sweetheart deal to avoid going belly-up a few years back. You might say that Andrew, I couldn't possibly comment. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jul 9, 2020 20:38:06 GMT
Could this finally mean the end of the RA control of Epsom & Ewell?
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 9, 2020 20:39:52 GMT
Unitary county councils are too large and remote to function effectively and serve the needs of a wide range of residents.
If unitarisation was necessary, it should be primarily according to local needs and connections first rather than numbers.
For example:
Lancashire's unitary authorities could be: Blackpool & Fylde (Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre), West Lancashire (West Lancashire and Chorley), South Lancashire (Blackburn with Darwen, Rossendale, Hyndburn), Lancashire Pennines (Burnley, Ribble Valley, and Pendle), and Greater Preston (Preston and South Ribble). Lancaster could meanwhile be part of a "North Lancashire & Westmorland" authority consisting Lancaster, Barrow-in-Furness, South Lakeland, and the southern part of Eden that was in Westmorland. The rest of Cumbria (Copeland, Allerdale, Carlisle, and northern half of Eden) would consequently become a Cumberland unitary authority.
|
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jul 9, 2020 20:49:41 GMT
Each of the local councils in Lancashire are close to agreeing a new model after years of parochial back and forth. Was going to say East Lancs!! They councils are small-ish, and the sharing of some provisions is obvious. On the other hand, they're transparent about wanting it for gerrymander reasons. Plus the gold star for the councillors that don't even know what a unitary authority is. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 9, 2020 21:07:16 GMT
Each of the local councils in Lancashire are close to agreeing a new model after years of parochial back and forth. Was going to say East Lancs!! They councils are small-ish, and the sharing of some provisions is obvious. On the other hand, they're transparent about wanting it for gerrymander reasons. Plus the gold star for the councillors that don't even know what a unitary authority is. Furthermore, why is Hyndburn not included in this proposed East Lancashire authority? It is right next to Burnley, Rossendale, and Blackburn with Darwen! And there is no doubt Accrington is culturally part of 'East Lancashire'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 21:43:24 GMT
Was going to say East Lancs!! They councils are small-ish, and the sharing of some provisions is obvious. On the other hand, they're transparent about wanting it for gerrymander reasons. Plus the gold star for the councillors that don't even know what a unitary authority is. Furthermore, why is Hyndburn not included in this proposed East Lancashire authority? It is right next to Burnley, Rossendale, and Blackburn with Darwen! And there is no doubt Accrington is culturally part of 'East Lancashire'. This is exactly why it's taken so long. Chorley doesn't trust Preston. South Ribble doesn't trust Chorley. Accrington doesn't trust Blackburn. Ribble Valley doesn't trust anybody. I'm not certain there will be an agreement this year tbh. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Jul 9, 2020 21:47:14 GMT
I’m personally a supporter of unitaries and would be happy to see the end of the county/district model. However, you need to have them realistically sized eg: Dorset (I see your pitchforks) so the idea of them spanning an entire county like Surrey sounds a bit much.
|
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Jul 9, 2020 22:09:47 GMT
I'm sure that the proposals to unitarise Somerset, East Sussex, Surrey, are down to genuine desire for improvements to democracy and local services and for no other reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jul 9, 2020 22:17:27 GMT
The Surrey districts are large and rich. It would make more sense to do a Berkshire and abolish the county council. |
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jul 9, 2020 22:23:17 GMT
Furthermore, why is Hyndburn not included in this proposed East Lancashire authority? It is right next to Burnley, Rossendale, and Blackburn with Darwen! And there is no doubt Accrington is culturally part of 'East Lancashire'. This is exactly why it's taken so long. Chorley doesn't trust Preston. South Ribble doesn't trust Chorley. Accrington doesn't trust Blackburn. Ribble Valley doesn't trust anybody. I'm not certain there will be an agreement this year tbh. It'd help if everyone actually knew what they were agreeing to. A combined authority doesn't sound so bad even if it does come with a silly elected mayor, a takeover of the rest of the county by Preston and Blackburn won't be popular. How many of those behind this scheme have previously railed against the distant/out of touch/biased county council? |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 10, 2020 5:36:02 GMT
The districts need to quickly get off the mark and put together a rival proposal to abolish the county council.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jul 10, 2020 7:33:19 GMT
The districts need to quickly get off the mark and put together a rival proposal to abolish the county council. I think they're too small to be acceptable to the Government as unitaries, so they'd have to propose some mergers. OTOH Surrey as a whole really ought to be too big to be acceptable as a unitary. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 10, 2020 8:26:24 GMT
I suspect it's probably less relevant who wants to become a unitary than it is who is likely to have to issue a section 114 notice. Northamptonshire is the relevant precedent here.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 10, 2020 8:34:12 GMT
The districts need to quickly get off the mark and put together a rival proposal to abolish the county council.
What would anyone suggest for the best merger of the present 11 Surrey districts down to say 3 or 4 unitaries? For 4 unitaries I might suggest:Surrey Heath+ Runnymede+ Woking (276k); Spelthorne+ Elmbridge (232k); Guildford+ Waverley (273k); Epsom&Ewell+Mole Valley+Reigate&Banstead+ Tandridge (392k). For 3 unitaries: Surrey Heath+Runnymede+Spelthorne+Elmbridge (405k); Guildford+Waverley +Woking (373k); Epsom& Ewell+Mole Valley+Reigate& Banstead+ Tandridge (392k) |
|
