Leicestershire’s districts and boroughs - including Harborough - submit proposals for the future of local politics

They said their plan would put “people at the heart” of local democracy, while still delivering tens of millions in savings.

The seven local authorities, along with Rutland County Council, are proposing a three-council approach for the area. It comes the Government said it wanted political structures in areas such as Leicestershire to be radically changed. Whitehall wants areas which have two tiers of local government, such as the county, to be reduced to a single-tier set up.

That does not mean, however, that there can only be one council for the county of Leicestershire. How many local authorities should serve Leicestershire in the future is a key point of disagreement among our political leaders – as is whether Leicester’s borders should be allowed to expand, with city mayor Sir Peter Soulsby sparking backlash this week when he revealed the city’s proposals for a number of towns and villages to be brought inside its borders.

The districts, boroughs and Rutland believe two, separate, authorities for the county, incorporating Rutland, is the best approach. Each council would serve separate geographical areas. Leicester should remain separate, they believe, with its existing boundaries honoured.

That has caused friction with the heads of Leicestershire County Council, who believe one ‘doughnut’ authority for Leicestershire, with Rutland and the city kept apart and existing borders again maintained, is the way forward.

The districts and boroughs published their full interim proposal for local government reorganisation on Friday March 21. They said it was based on a principle of “big enough to deliver, close enough to respond”.

If the Government decides to take their proposal forward, Leicestershire would be split in two on a roughly north-south divide. Leicester would remain unchanged.

The northern authority would include the areas currently forming Rutland county, Charnwood borough, North West Leicestershire district and Melton borough. The southern authority would be made up of Blaby district, Harborough district, Hinckley and Bosworth borough, and Oadby and Wigston borough.

Council heads said they believed that two smaller councils for the county, as opposed to one ‘doughnut’ authority encompassing Leicestershire as a whole, would allow them to ensure that “local democracy and services stay close to communities”, as well as retaining “local identity” within communities.

It would still allow them to deliver savings, they added. They believe that around £43 million could be saved each year once the authorities were up and running. That would partially be delivered through costs being cut, including through a need for fewer staff, particularly senior staff, and councillors, they said.

However, the council leaders also believe their approach would allow services to be more “preventive” when it came to key issues in communities. They said that splitting services in two in the county, while also involving town councils and volunteer groups, would allow frontline services, such as social care and housing teams, to be “big enough to deliver outstanding services” while being on a “local enough scale [that] it can be highly responsive, innovative and accountable”.

Under the districts’ and boroughs’ plan, each local authority area – including Leicester – would have around 400,000 residents within them. This would be expected to grow to around 450,000 by 2036, they said. However, it would still be less than the 500,000 population threshold suggested by the Government for local authority restructure.

The councils have acknowledged this, but said they “passionately believe” the scale of the authority areas they have proposed was the “best level within our geography at which to plan and assemble prevention-based long-term service delivery approaches”.

Leaders said they had considered other make-ups for local government going forward, including an east-west divide, and the single-council option preferred by the council council, but felt their proposal “worked best”. They said they believed that one large county authority would be “too big”, “lacked capacity” to local communities, and would be unbalanced when compared to Leicester in terms of population, with around 775,000 people in the county and 373,000 in the city.

An east-west divide would result in “a more unbalanced pattern of where people live and work, and a less sustainable debt gearing across the three new authorities”, they said.

The leaders of the district councils and Rutland County Council said in a joint statement: “The evidence, data and engagement carried out so far has made it clear that the proposal we make to Government delivers on all fronts. It meets the Government’s criteria for devolution and local government reorganisation and secures the best deal for our communities.

“Three well-balanced, equally sized councils can retain community connection and accountability, simplify services, protect and support the most vulnerable and deliver devolution which is critical to boost the local economy. It also sets out a greater focus on prevention and helping people live healthier and more independent lives.

“Our interim plan will also deliver savings, but it very much puts people and place at the heart of future local government structures.”

The leaders said they would continue to engage with the Government, local stakeholders and communities before full plans are submitted in November. They continued: “While we do not think the current system is broken, we very much recognise the Government’s intent on change and therefore we need to deliver […] This is the biggest shake-up of local government in 50 years, and we are working hard to get this right for all communities.”