What council reorganisation would mean for you - Leicestershire County Council's acting leader explains what happens next

The local government shake-up could see the end of the district and borough councils in the county.

The latest thinking from Leicestershire’s biggest authority is for a single county authority to be created, respecting existing boundaries. Leicester city and Rutland would remain separate under the proposals, which Leicestershire County Council intends to submit to the Government next month.

The new plan is a departure from that previously floated. Leaders had said in January that they would be advocating for Leicester’s borders to be expanded.

This was needed to maintain the financial viability of Leicester City Council, they agreed, and would allow it to meet Government-set housing targets. However, acting leader of Leicestershire County Council has now said the county would oppose any such expansion.

It also goes against what Leicestershire’s district and borough councils – which look set to be axed – want to see happen. They would prefer Leicestershire to be effectively split in half and governed by two new councils, not just the single authority proposed by the county council.

The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) spoke to Cllr Taylor to find out what the latest proposals would mean for you – and what happens next. Here is what she said.

Cllr Deborah Taylor, acting leader of Leicestershire County Council

Councillor Taylor said she believed the creation of a single authority for the whole of the county was the “common-sense” approach because it would “save the most money” and “produce the best outcomes for residents”. When merging authorities was considered in 2019, Cllr Taylor said, cost workings suggested in the region of £30 million would be saved each year with one unitary authority, as opposed to around £10 million if two were created.

The county council leadership also believes having two unitary authorities locally would result in a “postcode lottery” for residents when it came to the level of service they would receive, she told the LDRS. Cllr Taylor said: “Splitting the county in half would be more pain than gain, and the cost would be horrendous for us to actually do that because you’d be duplicating all of your back office staff.

“There’d be a competition between staff of two unitaries. You’ve got to deliver all those services and you’d end up with a postcode lottery, depending on which unitary residents were in, over what level of service they’ve got.

“It just doesn’t seem viable at all to cut social care in half, especially for children and adults. It just wouldn’t work in my view.”

Concerns have been raised by some, including the district and borough councils, that having one large authority for the county would be “too remote” and “too cumbersome”. The LDRS asked Cllr Taylor how leaders would make sure their plans do not leave residents feeling politically isolated.

She said: “We deliver all of our service in localities and local hubs, and social care we deliver in people’s homes. You can’t get any more local than that.

“So I dispute people saying it’s a ‘mega council’. It’s the council footprint on which we operate our services at the moment, so there’ll be no change to that.”

She added that the authority planned to set out proposals for new local area committees, including local area planning committees, featuring the elected councillors for that area. There would also be an “enhanced role” for parish and town councils, Cllr Taylor said, adding that the authority would be looking at what further responsibilities could be shared with them.

The LDRS also asked Cllr Taylor why the county council had done a U-turn on its previously expressed support for expanding the city’s borders, and its agreement that such a move was necessary. The acting leader put this down to the Government rejecting the authority’s bid to defer this year’s locally elections.

At that point, she said, the county council decided to revert to its 2019 plan for one council on the existing county footprint. Coun Taylor acknowledged, however, that the authority had not been told by ministers why its request to defer the elections had been rejected.

When pushed by the LDRS over why the support for the new city boundaries had been withdrawn if the authority did not know whether that was the reason for its initial bid to the Government being rejected, she said: “All I can tell you is the bid was rejected. The government said no to us, so we moved forward.”

The LDRS asked Cllr Taylor if she had a message for residents over the restructure plans. She said: “We want to hear your views, we want to hear what’s important to you, and the more people that feed back, the better view we have of what residents want their local authority who deliver their local services to look like in the future.”

Cllr Taylor added that she was still open to discussions with the district and borough councils and Leicester City Council about the future of local governance.

Sir Peter Soulsby, Leicester City Mayor

Sir Peter Soulsby, Leicester City Mayor, said he was “disappointed” but “not surprised” by the county council’s change of position on the city’s borders, saying he believed leaders wanted to been seen to be “defending the independence of their districts”. However, the Labour mayor said he still believed the boundary extension was the correct approach.

Sir Peter said the city authority would be “continuing to talk to” both the county council and the district and borough councils throughout the submission process.