Agenda item

To provide a Local Government Reorganisation (LGO) progress update for the Peterborough and Cambridgeshire area, and for Members to review and advise Cabinet of their feedback in regard to the 3 emerging proposals for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.

Members considered the Local Government Reorganisation Update report presented by Councillor Boden, which was seconded by Councillor Mrs French.

Members commented as follows:

·         Councillor Cutler thanked Councillor Boden for the update on the three options and asked if the fourth option being put forward by Peterborough is likely to get off the drawing board and if Council also need to consider this.

·         Councillor Boden responded that it is true that the two labour MPs in Peterborough have decided they would prefer something different for Peterborough, and it is a very interesting proposal for three unitary authorities instead of two. Currently there are two upper tier authorities, and they are responsible for the overwhelming majority of spend, 80% of the spend being social services. If there are three instead of two, the area with the greatest amount of spend will have a lesser economy of scale and that is concerning.  Especially seeing how the areas have been divided up – Fenland is with East Cambs with a slither of Huntingdon from Ramsey to St Neots. Ramsey would be included, Sawtry would not. It is a dog’s dinner. What is worse is that LGR will force disaggregation of assets, liabilities and responsibilities. Assets which the County Council has will all need to be split up and this is a massively complex process. Northamptonshire, who had unitarisation thrust upon them three years ago have still not managed to resolve this.  Peterborough MPs want to disaggregate not just Cambridgeshire County Council but also Huntingdonshire District Council.  If his understanding of their map is correct, they also want to split Huntingdonshire Town Council into different areas. He sees this proposal as being one which is absolutely determined by a very Peterborough ‘centric’ attitude and has severe doubts it will get through Peterborough City Council when it is put before them, and it is necessary for at least one local authority to put forward a scheme for it to be considered. He doubts that any authority will.

·         Councillor Taylor said this is something he has not agreed with, it is just political party point scoring but through his motion, members will know the people he is dealing with and there is a strong movement that this may not happen yet. Jim McMann seems to be doing things on his own, so he just sees this as major point scoring with no one having a specific plan of what they want to do and how, and no chance of it happening by November this year.

·         Councillor Woollard said looking purely at the three proposals, personally he is in favour of Option C – combining FDC with East Cambs, unfortunately also Peterborough City Council.  This combination will safeguard the rural nature of Fenland along with East Cambs and water down the effect of the urban takeover from Peterborough.

·         Councillor Tierney commented that since the current government came to power, they have made a lot of mistakes, but he does not think many people realise this is the most destructive policy they have issued, causing the most damage to Fenland communities. This is such a disastrous idea that will damage the ability of local institutions to try different things, to know who your councillors are, to make a difference, for no known reason. He does not want to vote for any of the options although he does have a preference. However, in his opinion everything is presumptuous, the argument being if you do not speak up now, they will do something to you, but he does not see the value in supporting it.

·         Councillor Nawaz commented that as a principle he does not agree with this because despite the Government propaganda about local democracy, he believes it will damage it because the representatives will become increasingly remote. Huge wards are being proposed, currently the South Whittlesey ward is 9 miles long and 6-7 miles in width, how it would be possible to represent the widespread rural areas is open to question. He thinks it will put the representatives further away from the residents and therefore will be more difficult to articulate their hopes, aspirations and concerns. The fourth option, there is a prima facie case for that, and Councillor Boden has quite rightly poured cold water over it but that said, there are important differences between each of the councils. They are widespread rural areas with cultural differences, he knows, he grew up in Peterborough, but the temperament, expectations, cultural understandings and needs are not the same as those of Fenland or even Huntingdonshire. They are under huge debt, they put up their council taxes to the maximum, they have huge parking charges, Fenland does not and has kept council tax down for the seventh successive year. For all these reasons, he would be opposed to all three options.

·         Councillor Hoy said that she similarly agrees with Councillor Nawaz.  Going in with Peterborough will be a disaster, particularly for Wisbech, the reason being that so many of their rough sleepers will come to Wisbech. She worries that because of Fenland’s cheaper housing many more landlords will pop up here, they will pick the cheapest place to live, it will exacerbate all this area’s existing problems and make things worse. She has seen some people online saying the reasons, but they are overlooking the facts, it is strange that they are so scared of outsiders but also fiercely loyal, sceptical but would give you the shirt off their back. Wisbech is a beautiful town, a diamond in the rough, Chatteris, another lovely local town. Whittlesey, so much going on with beautiful buildings and lovely residents. March, another lovely useful place with lots of people who have lived there for years. Fenland is a wonderful place, if we lose sight of that, our villages, and the older she is getting the more she recognises the value of that lifestyle, if that is lost, we will never get it back, we will just become a massive enclave of Peterborough. It will just be Peterborough with Fenland’s history lost forever.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis said Government talks about localism but what this does is take that away from rural areas, it is vital for Fenland to have a voice at the table, but the voice will be very limited. FDC has not increased council tax and provides free parking, this will go, and there is talk about devolving some of the jobs down to parish level so the precepts will have to go up. It is bad for rural areas. She likes none of the options but if pushed, she would choose Option C as it gives rural areas more chance.

·         Councillor Hay commented that she also thinks this is disastrous, so much for localism, it is as far away from that as you can get but if having to put in a proposal, she would be against proposal B which puts Fenland with four whereas the other options put us with three. She would like to keep the new authority as small as possible and would also favour Option C.

·         Councillor Miscandlon recalled when he was Chairman of FDC, people used to say what is Fenland; four market towns and 13 villages and every one of them is different and he wants to keep it that way, he does not support this, it will be a mish mash. Government announced this just before Christmas and ruined it for people and they have been doing it ever since.

·         Councillor Count commented that like many people, he does not agree with the proposals, but Fenland has to be at the table regardless. The three options presented have been narrowed down, members are not at the stage yet of saying which option they want, and they need the business plans to understand the financial and geographic synergies, and he thinks that will come along later. He sympathises with the person who said that it does not matter what you say because Government will pick the options, and he agrees with that but the main point about being at the table is being part of the voice as to what comes after. None of the proposals leave Fenland with Cambridgeshire County Council, that will be gone. All of them put Fenland with Peterborough City Council and he knows from experience the bones have always been at CCC, if Fenland is not at the table afterwards to argue its corner, then the damage comes. When £300m of the deficit is on Fen roads, Fenland needs a strong powerful voice to be involved all the way along to highlight the inconsistencies, it cannot be done at local level and government level, he is going to wait for the business plans. No matter how much members resent it, the Leader needs to be given an opportunity to engage.

·         Councillor J Clark pointed out that local government reorganisation is not new, his father was part of this, and he is sure the comments at the time of the last review were the same. Personally, his business sense tells him it would be better staying connected to Cambridge but that is not an option.  The Leader has been the one sitting in the meetings and getting the feedback, and so he would like to ask Councillor Boden what his feeling is about what the other councils may prefer that may probably help Councillor Clark to make up his mind.

Councillor Boden summed up that it had been a very useful and helpful debate, all comments will be considered but the Council has until 28^th November to make a submission. In response to Councillor Clark asking what other leaders are saying, he can only say that South Cambs met and agreed to Option B, but he cannot speak for the others. Several members today have reluctantly mentioned their preference for Option C, and he agrees that this will give FDC the greatest voice and there is no option but to go with Peterborough regardless. Despite all this, the Government will end up doing what it wants anyway. However, FDC has to play the game to have any say at all and exercise what influence it can and ensure it has a say. Once more information is available, members can look again at what stands out as being best for this area. Another meeting will be held in the autumn to discuss further and choose options.

AGREED for Full Council to provide their feedback to Cabinet to support ongoing dialogue within the LGR process.  

(Councillor Marks left the meeting at the end of this item).