Foreword

By the Leader of the Council

This is an informal statement prepared by Mid Devon District Council.

This Council has made it clear that, along with several of its neighbouring Authorities, it favours continuation of the “enhanced two-tier approach”, which it believes was an intelligent, forward-thinking strategy, based on partnering and service-sharing initiatives designed to attain economies of scale while preserving the all-important localness of focus and community leadership expected by those who live and work in Devon. The unitary project is an unsought diversion of attention and resource from both that strategy and also this Council’s own improvement plan, which has been acknowledged by the Audit Commission, GOSW and IDeA as making significant progress.

As we understand that the Boundary Committee will not give consideration to any comparison between the relative merits of unitary and non-unitary solutions, we have prepared proposals as requested. We believe that, given the terms of reference of the investigation, the two options presented here constitute reasonable ways forward, with a good chance of meeting the expectations of the five listed criteria.

We are undertaking such consultation as is practicable within the extremely restricted timescale offered to us and intend continuing this beyond 11 April with a view to feeding analysis of the responses into the ongoing dialogue with the Boundary Committee.

Councillor John Berry

2 mddc unitary solution submission april08 Introduction

Mid Devon District Council believes that any unitary solution for Devon would be less satisfactory for the people of Devon. We, along with many of the other Devon Districts were, until the Review was announced, pursuing the opportunities of “enhanced two tier” service delivery. It is, therefore, with regret that we now find ourselves required to provide concepts for a unitary solution for Devon. Nevertheless, we owe it to our residents to ensure that the concepts considered will provide viable models for a unitary solution for Devon.

The proposals contained in this document we believe provide viable, cost-effective, unitary solutions for the County, providing economies of scale and strategic influence, whilst re-invigorating local democracy based on community identity and need.

The proposals take into consideration the criteria set out by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Boundary Committee.

The Boundary Committee Structural Review of Devon challenges the authorities to look at structures across the County and develop a unitary solution for Devon. The purpose of this paper is to provide Mid Devon’s submission with suggested models of local government which could fit the stated criteria. We believe that the proposals could transform local government and provide a solution that acts local, feels local and is accessible locally yet has a strategic grip on what matters for Devon and carries weight with regional and national government. However, they do offer different balances between, on the one hand, local empowerment and on the other, recognition of economic realities.

The proposal will provide lean, low-cost authorities which will deliver significant savings to the public purse. There would be a model of service delivery and governance that provides for services to be shared where possible but where accountability and decision making are devolved to the lowest level possible. At the same time, we believe the suggested model could embrace new, more flexible and responsive ways of working and aggregating service delivery where appropriate whilst devolving decision making to the local level.

Tangible and meaningful community empowerment could be provided encouraging the community and voluntary organisations to be involved in service design.

3 mddc unitary solution submission april08 Criteria

Any proposal contained in this submission has been assessed against the following criteria as set out by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Boundary Committee in their Key Lines of Enquiry:-

• Affordability

• Broad cross section of support

• Strategic leadership

• Neighbourhood empowerment

• Value for money and equity

The test of affordability has not been examined in detail at the concept stage although we recognise the arguments proposed have relied on arguments used by other areas to support large unitary solutions.

4 mddc unitary solution submission april08 Outcomes of Unitary Government

In submitting both outline concepts, the District Council started from a set of outcomes we would want unitary governance to deliver. They are:-

• A stronger economy which improves the standard of living for all residents;

• A narrowing of the gap between the best and the worst off within the County by improving the position of the worst off;

• Fair access to high-quality public services without the confusion of two-tier services;

• Best possible value for money for council tax payers removing unnecessary layers of duplication;

• Minimum disruption for local people and proportionate costs of change;

• A strong voice for citizens in their parishes and towns and clear accountability for local government services;

• Higher profile for the unitary Devon options both in the regional platform and the national platform and strategic resilience to be able to deal with major emergencies;

• People would see a simple, easy-to-access organisation that you could contact by phone, by email or in person by visiting one of several front-of-house offices;

• People would have a minimum, consistent standard of service no matter where they lived and pay equal level of council tax for those services;

• Because different communities have different needs, local people would be able to exercise choices at a local level;

• Residents would be able to attend and ask questions at local council discussions on issues affecting them. They would know their local councillor, see him/her in action at local meetings, have opportunities to feed in their views and concerns and be confident in their councillor’s ability to influence and take decisions on their behalf.

In applying the four criteria we have made ambitious assumptions of the type of authority of any unitary concept. The suggested solutions have no democratic endorsement, but are simply an attempt to offer possible scenarios for delivery of services.

5 mddc unitary solution submission april08 Regional Partners

The larger the unitary proposals the more beneficial the outcome of working with regional partners. Working with small numbers of authorities would provide a streamlined system that is less resource-hungry and would reduce duplication of effort. It would share planning in unitary areas that make sense and where key borders are co-terminous. There would be a mechanism to work together to achieve a shared outcome and a greater strategic capacity to have an effective sub-regional and regional voice. The outcome would be a workable and complete local government structure in the County. There would be continued improvement with reduced costs to save or re-invest and the Local Area Agreements (LAAs) would have the ability to develop Multi Area Agreements (MAAs) with partner authorities with distinct targets and outcomes.

6 mddc unitary solution submission april08 Devon’s Population Density

The map clearly illustrates the very large sparsely populated area of Devon. Population is mainly concentrated in the south and east of the County. The problem this causes is that any amalgamation of Districts to the north of the County is unable to provide the critical mass of population needed to provide services across a vast area. This, therefore, is one of the principal reasons for suggesting only two options.

7 mddc unitary solution submission april08 The Two Options For Unitary Governance In Devon

Option A

A Single Unitary Council for Devon excluding Plymouth and Torbay

Option 1 would represent a “big is beautiful” solution for Devon. It would be affordable, providing value for money and equitable services across the County. There would be visible leadership for the County and there would be an end to duplication and confusion in the minds of the public. It would dramatically simplify and strengthen partnership working across a whole range of services and deliver much more joined up services throughout the County. This option could include an extension of the boundaries of Plymouth and Torbay if it was seen to benefit the unitary solution for Devon and provide realistic areas of growth for the existing unitary councils.

Devon PCT, Devon and Cornwall Basic Command Unit and Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority have very similar service delivery areas as a new Unitary Devon.

8 mddc unitary solution submission april08

However, Devon is a very large county and it can take a long time to travel from one part to another, given the nature of many of the roads. This option would carry the risk of being seen as too big and with the Local Authority being seen as too remote by many local people and therefore less able to deliver local empowerment. On the other hand, the potential economies of scale would be maximised.

9 mddc unitary solution submission april08 Option B

Western and Eastern Devon, Plymouth and Torbay

This option recognises the existing authorities of Torbay and Plymouth but dissects the remaining County into two halves; one western and the other eastern. The eastern unitary authority takes on board Exeter and much of its travel to work area and the existing areas of Mid Devon and East Devon. It recognises the diverse nature between the eastern part of the County and the western part of the County; the western taking in both coastal areas of south Devon and north Devon with similar problems and challenges. The western area straddles both Exmoor National Park and the Dartmoor National Park and could act as a cohesive factor in the unification. They are, therefore, a mixture of moor and sea. Eastern Devon concentrates on the pattern of travel-to-work areas and the focus of Exeter in its place in the eastern part of Devon. Both western and eastern Devon unitary authorities have capacity and size to deliver effective size and strategic influence. It has good co-terminosity with many of the Parliamentary constituencies.

In this option, there is an attempt to align more closely to the economic realities of the county, recognising, in the east, the significance of Exeter and its travel-to-work area, and in the north/west, the common agricultural/coastal/market town mix. These are not watertight compartments of course as these ingredients are also present in the east.

As with Option A, the Council believes that this concept could include an extension of the boundaries of Plymouth and Torbay. 10 mddc unitary solution submission april08

11 mddc unitary solution submission april08 The Four Criteria

Option A

Unitary Devon, Plymouth and Torbay

Criterion 1 – Broad Cross-Section of Support

The extremely tight timescales of the review has not enabled Mid Devon to comprehensively assess stakeholder support for this option or, indeed, any other options contained in this submission. However, within the time available, we have provided information on the Council’s website, provided a display in the Council offices with Council officers available to answer questions, arranged press coverage, and invited responses. Additionally, specific invitations were sent to parish and town councils and an open day arranged for them to ask questions and offer their views. Consultation will continue in order to afford local residents, traders and other stakeholders adequate opportunity to express their views.

Criterion 2 – Strategic Leadership

This proposal will increase the visibility and accountability of the Council’s leadership and improve its ability to make difficult and strategic decisions for the benefit of the county. A single, strong voice would enable Devon to be represented more effectively within the wider region and on the national stage. Whatever processes are put in place there will need to be a recognition of somehow shortening the distance between those who govern and the governed.

Objectives of strategic leadership can be provided by ensuring the Local Area Agreement (LAA) arrangements are simplified. A single authority would make partnership arrangements more effective in terms of administration and support.

A large single authority could build in models such as Community Networks or Community Area Boards with local LAA targets – sub-sets of countywide targets which would increase accountability between partners and to the public at a more local level. Corporate capacity could be provided by a clear role for the Executive and a cross-cutting corporate structure. This would contribute to strong, strategic leadership. Scrutiny arrangements countywide would act as an effective challenge of the Executive.

Alternative models could be:-

(a) to make use of the existing District Council areas and their administrative offices as focuses, or, (b) the three “clusters” adopted under the existing two-tier enhanced strategy or, indeed,

12 mddc unitary solution submission april08 (c) the Devon County Council three-way administration arrangements for services such as highways and children.

Criterion 3 – Neighbourhood Empowerment

Successful unitary bids at county level have satisfied the Secretary of State that appropriate Area solutions, if implemented, would achieve the outcome specified by the criterion.

They are well defined communities within the County based on existing town and parish community models. Clustering of parishes along strong settlement areas could provide locally based Area Boards or County Networks. The area solutions could be member-led with regular public engagement as a means of escalating community concerns.

Proposals could be based on existing and established working arrangements through a single forum for each area bringing together public sector partners, voluntary and community sectors and local people; these arrangements could deliver neighbourhood empowerment.

Criterion 4 – Value for Money Services

A unitary Devon would be able to harmonise the valuable service standards currently existing and elevate them to a consistently high standard. These include:-

• one local Development Framework for rural Devon;

• one waste collection and disposal service;

• better use of and capacity to engage specialist services;

• improved Customer First arrangements to provide better digital media solutions;

• single ICT strategy as a key enabler to increased effectiveness;

• support services rationalisation.

13 mddc unitary solution submission april08 Option B

Eastern and Western Devon, Unitary Plymouth and Torbay

Criterion 1 – Broad Cross-Section of Support

As with Option A, the timescales do not allow meaningful consultation at this stage.

Criterion 2 – Strategic Leadership

Many of the opportunities described in this option would apply provided that there is strong strategic collaboration between the two bodies to avoid competition and to combine a focussed leadership view for the whole of the County. Collaboration over LAAs and a sound strategic alliance between the two authorities could support an agenda to benefit the County as a whole.

The two suggested unitary boundaries relate very well with the new Parliamentary constituencies. There is an overlap between central Devon straddling Eastern and Western Devon but the others are in the main co-terminous.

There are inherent similarities between the two suggested authorities that could result in complementary benefits, eg the consideration of rural deprivation would be similar in both areas. The relationship between urban and rural in each of the newly created authorities would present similar issues. The success of the two unitaries would be reduced if the two newly created local authorities concentrated on their individual identity rather than the benefits of working together.

Criterion 3 – Neighbourhood Empowerment

As with Option A, any combination of two unitary councils for Devon would also need to introduce local governance arrangements in order to engage effectively with local people and to deliver simpler faster services. It is submitted that the principles and key features set out above for Option A would apply to two unitary councils in Devon.

We believe Eastern Devon, in particular, allows the strength of Exeter as the former County Town to be the focus of the new community of Eastern Devon. Just as now, the people of Mid Devon and East Devon relate to the key services and facilities that Exeter provides with its industrial land, its hospital and its regional shopping facilities.

Western Devon will have complementary issues of rural versus coastal and would be able to concentrate purely on rural issues without the dilution of urban problems. It would recognise the problems of a sparsely populated rural hinterland supported by market towns.

14 mddc unitary solution submission april08

Criterion 4 – Value for Money Services

Two unitaries would deliver significant efficiency savings and benefit from economies of scale, reduced duplication and the rationalisation of assets.

There would be an opportunity to redesign services. More importantly the critical mass of services would provide an acceptable level of resilience to deal with challenges associated with specialist services. This option would shorten the distance between those who govern and the governed. Communication across the unitary area would be easier.

15 mddc unitary solution submission april08 Fifth Criterion

Analysis of Affordability

Although not specifically required at this time below we have outlined our thoughts on affordability as this criteria formed a very large factor in the reasoning behind the Options. We were mindful of the Boundary Committee’s comments that any more than five unitary solutions for Devon would be difficult to satisfy on affordability grounds.

Our Preferred Options A and B

Option A

There is evidence that the creation of larger unitary councils is affordable and delivers value for money. This option could be tailored to include an extension of boundaries for Plymouth and Torbay to incorporate identified areas of growth and existing areas of population of South Devon. The principal reasons for this are:-

Transition Costs

• the costs of change would be minimised for council tax payers;

• the timing of transition would be within the control of a new authority as a single entity. The costs of change could be spread and managed;

• a single unitary would provide a larger pot of unmarked reserves of the amalgamating councils;

• existing District Council offices can act as new authority area offices.

Savings

A single unitary council would provide more scope for efficiency savings than in other patterns of unitary governance. The abolition of eight councils and the creation of a new single council would deliver savings where there is currently duplication. There would be savings from:-

• streamlining of management overheads;

• rationalisation of support services;

• removal of duplication:

o customer access; o ICT; o HR policies; o finance re budget process, etc. 16 mddc unitary solution submission april08

It is recognised that savings will be partly offset by:

• reduction in formula grant; • council tax equalisation.

Option B

Much of the theory of “big is beautiful” in Option A can be applied to Option B but on a lesser scale. Option B provides two large authorities. “Western” Devon has a population of in excess of 400,000 and “Eastern” Devon has in excess of 325,000. Both authorities have the population mass to support the delivery of all services.

Western Devon is defined by its large geographical spread and a population that is concentrated in the south but the population overall can support delivery of services across a large geographical area.

Transition Costs

• With only two authorities to create, savings would be made by moving from nine authorities with associated fixed costs to two councils;

• Whilst not as cost-effective as one, evidence from elsewhere still shows savings;

• It could explore a combined transfer team to reduce costs.

Savings

• There would be sufficient reserves for two unitary authorities to provide a workable ‘cushion’ to fund existing commitments and set-up costs;

• Savings would result from integrating services such as all support services, senior officer structures and corporate planning;

• Would enable new authorities to ‘design out’ inefficient processes, waste and duplication;

• It is recognised that savings would be partly offset by:-

o reduction in formula grant; o council tax equalisation.

17 mddc unitary solution submission april08