The Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) Scrutiny Committee met to discuss the implications of the government's decision on local government reorganisation in Devon and the proposed warding arrangements for the new unitary authorities. The committee resolved to note and comment upon the government's decision and to review the council's emerging implementation arrangements, with a focus on informing their future work programme.

Local Government Reorganisation: Government Decision and Implications

The committee discussed the significant implications of the government's decision to reorganise local government in Devon, Plymouth, and Torbay. Councillors expressed concerns about the speed at which decisions were being made, the potential financial costs, and the impact on frontline services and staff. There was a strong sentiment that the reorganisation was a top-down process rather than a collaborative one.

Key points raised included:

• Financial Costs: Concerns were voiced about the total estimated cost of the transition, with some councillors suggesting it could be in the tens of millions of pounds. The sufficiency of government funding, £900,000 per new unitary authority plus £150,000 for leadership development, was questioned. Councillor Neil Stephens QVRM highlighted that any overspend would ultimately fall on taxpayers.
• Implementation and Governance: The establishment of a pan-Devon implementation team was discussed, with estimates suggesting it would involve hundreds of people. Questions were raised about the role and membership of joint committees, with the current understanding being that leaders would likely appoint members.
• Staffing and Workforce: Councillor Neil Stevens QVRM raised concerns about staff uncertainty, potential job losses, and the impact on recruitment and retention. Officers assured the committee that efforts were being made to communicate with staff and that current modelling suggested staff numbers might not change dramatically, with staff being transferred under TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings, Protection of Employment) regulations. However, the exact future structures and roles remain to be determined by the shadow councils.
• Judicial Review: Councillor Paul Hayward inquired about the council's stance on potential judicial reviews, with officers confirming that evidence was being gathered and a decision would go to Cabinet in September.
• Naming of New Authorities: The confirmed name for the new authority, Devon Council, was discussed. Councillor Louise Wainwright expressed confusion and concern that parts of Devon would not be part of Devon Council, and that this decision had been made without clear communication or consultation with councillors. Officers explained that the name had been confirmed by the government following discussions with local authorities, but that there was a process to apply for changes.
• Risk Management: The committee expressed a desire for regular updates on risk management related to the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), with a suggestion for a standing item on the agenda. Access to up-to-date risk registers was also requested.
• Assets and Services: Questions were raised about the disposal and distribution of council assets, including County Hall, and how ongoing projects that span beyond the transition date would be managed. Officers confirmed that work streams were being set up to address asset management and that some projects would continue into the new authorities. The complexity of managing contracts and procurement during the transition was also acknowledged.

The committee resolved to note and comment upon the government's decision, amending the original recommendation to allow for a record of the extensive debate and concerns raised. They also agreed to review the council's emerging implementation arrangements to inform their future work programme.

Warding Arrangements Submission

The committee discussed the proposed warding arrangements for the new unitary authorities, a process that is being managed under significant time pressure. The government has set a deadline of 17 August for submissions, with a Cabinet meeting scheduled for 10 August and an all-member briefing on the same day.

Key issues and concerns raised included:

• Equitable Representation: Councillor Paul Hayward presented data suggesting significant disparities in the workload for councillors across different proposed areas. For example, councillors in the new Devon Authority would be responsible for approximately 106-107 kilometres of road and 53 square kilometres of area, compared to 27 kilometres and 7 square kilometres for councillors in Exeter. He argued that the current proposals were inequitable and potentially biased.
• Lack of Rationale for Councillor Numbers: Councillor Michael Mitchell questioned the rationale behind the government's decisions on the number of councillors for each new authority, noting discrepancies between initial bids and final figures, particularly for Exeter and Torbay. Officers stated they had not been provided with a rationale for these changes.
• Community Severance: Concerns were raised about communities being split between different new unitary authorities. Councillor Louise Wainwright highlighted the specific cases of Ottery St. Mary and West Hill, which have strong community links but are proposed to be split. Officers acknowledged that they had identified several such instances and would be seeking feedback from councillors on any other communities they were aware of being split.
• Parished vs. Non-Parished Areas: Councillor Neil Stevens QVRM and others raised concerns about the potential democratic deficit in areas that would not have parish councils, suggesting that councillors in these areas might have a lower ratio of electorate to members. While officers confirmed that the use of district, city, parish, and county boundaries would be mixed to create sensible outcomes, the specific implications for parished and non-parished areas were not definitively clarified.
• Timeliness and Democratic Engagement: The extremely tight timeframe for developing and submitting warding arrangements was a significant concern. Councillor Neil Raleigh questioned how the committee could adequately scrutinise these complex issues within the given deadlines. Councillor Tony Arnott acknowledged the suboptimal timeline but stated that the government deadline was firm.
• Equality Impact Assessments: Councillor Sara Wilson inquired about the process for conducting equality impact assessments for the interim warding decisions and whether these assessments could influence the final warding arrangements. Officers confirmed that detailed equality impact assessments had been conducted as part of the initial proposals and would be updated, but acknowledged that the final decision rested with the government.
• Contractual and Legal Considerations: Councillor Neil Stevens QVRM raised questions about how existing contracts and procurement would be managed during the transition, and whether government guidance had been provided. Officers confirmed that contract management and procurement were separate work streams and that legal considerations, including GDPR, were being captured as part of the overall risk assessment.

The committee agreed to include recommendations in their submission to the Cabinet, focusing on the need for equitable representation, the impact on communities, and the importance of considering democratic engagement in the warding arrangements. They also noted the desire for members to be informed of any community severance issues and for officers to gather feedback from councillors on such concerns. The committee's recommendations will inform the council's formal response to the government by the 17th of August.