DOCSLIB.ORG

Unitary Council Leaflet, A4 Format

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Unitary Council Leaflet, A4 Format One council – what would change? One council – half a million reasons Cumbria currently has two tiers of local government – the county council and six why it makes sense district councils. The two tiers have different responsibilities and deliver different services. For example, the district council collects waste, while the county council Cumbria has a population of half a million people and is a unique place, with disposes of it; the district council picks up litter and cleans the streets, while the diverse communities and diverse needs. county council maintains the roads. We believe a single council for Cumbria will be able to better serve Cumbria’s Much of England – and all of Wales and Scotland – has already removed these two half a million residents. Here are some reasons why: tiers by creating single, unitary councils that deliver all services. • Having one council instead of seven saves £22.2m for council tax payers. Cumbria County Council’s proposal involves unifying the existing six district councils People will get the same, and better, services… for less money and county council into a new single authority for Cumbria. It has been supported by all three main political parties in the county council as well as many of the key • Communities will have a greater say in the way their local services are delivered organisations in the county such as the voluntary sector and the Primary Care Trust. through new Community Boards • Stronger frontline councillors will have the powers to make a difference and get things done locally One council – why change now? • People will only need to deal with one council that everyone understands - The opportunity to transform local government doesn’t come along often – the last no more confusion about which council does what round of changes in England was made over 10 years ago. At that time, Cumbria decided to maintain the status quo, with a commitment to improve relations across • Cumbria will have a stronger voice to argue for jobs, investment and the different tiers of local government. But the limitations, inefficiencies and confusion resources at a regional and national level of the existing system still exist 10 years on. National and regional decision makers have continued, in vain, to urge us to speak clearly and with one voice about our priorities. In short, Cumbria deserves better. The Government has given every indication that funding for local government will come under considerable pressure in the next Comprehensive Spending Review. It is unrealistic to expect that in the future Cumbria will be able to afford to deliver local services and democracy through the same inefficient two-tier structures. We simply cannot afford to sustain the existing duplication of effort and must capitalise on the economies of scale afforded by a single unitary council for the whole county. cumbria.gov.uk/onecouncil One council – what happens next? One council, Timetable for change One vision, July 2007: The Government will announce which areas in England will be restructured, followed by enactment of necessary legislation. One voice. May 2008: Elections take place for the new unitary council. May 2008 - A shadow council begins establishing the new unitary council April 2009 and prepares transfers with existing councils. April 2009: The new unitary council for the whole of Cumbria takes over the running of council services. Cumbria County Council’s proposal for a unitary authority is being assessed by the Department for Communities and Local Government. A public consultation is being run until 22 June 2007 and anybody can respond to the proposal by writing to: The Department of Communities and Local Government, Zone 5/E8, The challenge: To cut the cost of bureaucracy in local government, to find Eland House, better ways of delivering local services, to give people a more local voice in Bressenden Place, decision making, to cut confusion over ‘who does what’. London SW1E 5DU Or email [email protected] The solution: By changing seven councils into one ‘unitary’ council, Cumbria’s council tax payers would save £22.2m a year, services would be joined up and more efficient, new community boards would be far more local than the existing More details can be found on the Department for Communities and Local set-up, and council issues will be dealt with in one-stop shops in communities all Government’s website communities.gov.uk round the county. or Cumbria County Council’s website cumbria.gov.uk/onecouncil cumbria.gov.uk/onecouncil One council – how will it work? Bigger isn’t always better. That’s why the new council won’t just be Community board pilots one big organisation far removed from It will be a decision for the new council the people of Cumbria. Its structure - consulting with local communities - how to structure Community Boards in Cumbria, but will be far more local than the current work on creating these visionary new ways The £22.2m saved each year by running a more of working is already underway. Pilot schemes efficient council will be shared between tax payers and system of six districts and will bring local have already been created in Barrow, North service users. Around three-quarters of people’s total council democracy much closer to communities. Allerdale, Grange & Cartmel, Keswick and tax bill is set by the county council - but each district council in North East Copeland to help shape how Cumbria also makes a charge on top of this. The current system they will work in practice once the new Longtown means people living in the six different districts of Cumbria all council is up and running. Brampton pay different levels of council tax. Under a unitary council, except Making the council more local will be done by for amounts paid to parishes, everyone will pay the same rate creating between 20 and 30 Community Boards built Carlisle and the new rate will be based on the lowest of the six district Silloth around Cumbria’s main urban centres and market councils - currently Allerdale. This means people in Carlisle, Eden, towns. They will be based on real communities which Wigton Copeland, South Lakeland and Barrow will all benefit. £5.1m of people recognise, where individuals and communities Alston the annual savings would be returned to taxpayers this way. can set out local standards, local priorities and even Aspatria manage and own their community’s assets where they Maryport Plus at the moment, the Government caps council tax increases choose to. The Community Boards would include at 5%; the unitary council will cap any increases at 4% or less for Cockermouth Penrith representatives of Parish and Town councils as well Workington the first three years - meaning council tax bills will not increase as other organisations such as the police and health by as much as they have been over the last few years. By the Keswick authorities. third year £6m of the annual savings would be returned to Whitehaven Appleby-in-Westmorland taxpayers this way. The remainder of the efficiency savings will A fundamental principle of the new authority is that Cleator Moor be ploughed back into improving frontline services. it will lead to improved services to the public - based around the needs of citizens and communities. Egremont Kirkby Stephen Services will be accessible to customers at the times Ambleside and in the places they are most needed - rather than Pilot Community Board Areas Windermere at the convenience of council bureaucracies. Grange and Cartmel Kendal Keswick Sedbergh This will include one-stop shop contact centres in NE Copeland local communities, telephone contact centres with North Allerdale Partnership Millom Milnthorpe extended operating hours and more services available Central Barrow Ulverston online. As there will be just one council, there will Grange Kirkby Lonsdale Dalton -over- be no more being passed from pillar to post as Key Service Centre -in- Sands Barrow Furness There will be fewer councillors in a one-council different organisations claim your problems aren’t -in- their responsibility. Furness Cumbria, and they will have more power to get things done and represent their local wards. Cumbria already struggles to find enough people willing to be councillors - many local elections see uncontested seats. The eventual plan is to have around 100 Cumbria councillors - there are currently 371. One council means one chief executive and one senior management team The cost of setting up a new unitary council would be Another weakness in the current system is that some areas rather than seven. It will also only need one set of back-office systems such as payroll, £21.3m. Because of the savings involved in having just one are represented by a range of different councillors serving computer systems and finance. Currently tax payers in Cumbria are paying for these jobs to council instead of seven, these transition costs would be paid different councils. This can be confusing for electors. In a be done in seven separate organisations. back in 2.5 years. unitary council everyone will know who has been elected and what they are accountable for. cumbria.gov.uk/onecouncil.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LOCAL GOVERNMENT Reform in KĀPITI – What Do You Think? 1
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN KĀPITI – WHAT DO YOU THINK? 1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN KĀPITI – WhaT DO YOU THINK? kapiticoast.govt.nz/reform 2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN KĀPITI – WHAT DO YOU THINK? WE WANT TO HEAR FROM AS MANY RESIDENTS AS POSSIBLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN KĀPITI – WHAT DO YOU THINK? 3 Introduction This discussion document has been released by the Kāpiti Coast District Council to help find out how residents want their district to be governed in the future. This document seeks to stimulate discussion and identify whether you want changes to how local government operates in Kāpiti and what you broadly want that change to look like. There are many ways that local government is affected in one way or another by the could be structured in the wider area. However services provided by local government, we in order to have a reasonably focussed debate have described the four options at a fairly high we have identified four options that represent level, without too much detail. We have also different degrees of change. Option 1 contains 2 consciously decided not to express either a sub-options. There is the opportunity for you to preferred option or any views on the advantages discuss other options if you choose. and disadvantages of each option – we are asking the public to do that for us at this stage. Our four options range from keeping the current councils in place but making formal It is not our role to tell other parts of the region arrangements to share services across councils how they should be governed.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief-To-Advise-Frome-Town-Council-In-The-Run-Up-To-And-Establishment-Of-Unitary-Authority.Pdf
    Unitary Adviser Brief Frame Town Council Brief to advise Frame Town Council in the run up to and establishment of unitary authority(ies) in Somerset 1. Scope Frame Town Council is recognised locally, nationally and internationally as a forward thinking and innovative Council. We are renowned for exploring how to expand the remit of town councils. Somerset is about to embark on local government reorganisation. The county council and the district councils will be replaced with one or two unitary councils in April 2023. FTC sees this as an opportunity to change the way local government in Somerset works towards a more community led approach where decisions are made at the appropriate level and with the appropriate engagement. Influencing how the new unitary is established and developed is a key project for the Council. We want to appoint an experienced advisor or small consultancy to work with FTC Cllrs and staff and other relevant organisations in and beyond Fro me. This work is likely to last at least until September or October 2021 and we anticipate 2 to 3 working days per week. We will be interested in someone who understands local government, has worked at a senior level in relevant organisations, who understands large scale change programmes and ideally also has recent experience of local government reorganisation. The ability to build excellent working relationships at all levels of local government and business will be essential. With other Somerset based parish sector organisations, FTC commissioned a report (here) last year which explores the possibilities of reorganisation. Its seven recommendations have been accepted by both proposals presented to the Government: One Somerset (here) promoted by the County Council, and Stronger Somerset (here) promoted by the four district Councils.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Collaboration in Surrey
    WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL COUNCIL 23 FEBRUARY 2021 Title: Local Government Collaboration in Surrey Portfolio Holder: Cllr J Ward, Leader Senior Officer: T Horwood, Chief Executive Key decision: No Access: Public 1. Purpose and summary 1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Council on progress on local government collaboration since the Council and Executive discussions of 22 July and 8 September 2020 respectively, and to allow Council to debate opportunities for future collaboration among local authorities in the light of the KPMG report, and this report. 2. Recommendation The Executive has: 1. Noted the KPMG report on future opportunities for local government in Surrey; 2. Endorsed the development of an initial options appraisal for collaboration with Guildford Borough Council; and 3. Allocated the remaining £15,000 budget previously approved for “a unitary council proposal” to “exploring collaboration opportunities with other councils”. The Executive recommend to the Council that it debate opportunities for future collaboration among local authorities in the light of the KPMG report and this report. 3. Reason for the recommendation 3.1 This report updates councillors and the public on the progress made in the discussions on local government reorganisation and collaboration in Surrey. 3.2 At Executive meetings in 2020, £30,000 was allocated “to support preparatory work for a unitary council proposal”. It is now recommended to allocate the remaining £15,000 to support the development of proposals for council collaboration, to be reported back to the Executive in due course. 4. Background context 4.1 A detailed update was provided to the Executive at its meeting on 8 September 2020,1 and is summarised as follows.
    [Show full text]
  • IPPR | Empowering Counties: Unlocking County Devolution Deals ABOUT the AUTHORS
    REPORT EMPOWERING COUNTIES UNLOCKING COUNTY DEVOLUTION DEALS Ed Cox and Jack Hunter November 2015 © IPPR 2015 Institute for Public Policy Research ABOUT IPPR IPPR, the Institute for Public Policy Research, is the UK’s leading progressive thinktank. We are an independent charitable organisation with more than 40 staff members, paid interns and visiting fellows. Our main office is in London, with IPPR North, IPPR’s dedicated thinktank for the North of England, operating out of offices in Newcastle and Manchester. The purpose of our work is to conduct and publish the results of research into and promote public education in the economic, social and political sciences, and in science and technology, including the effect of moral, social, political and scientific factors on public policy and on the living standards of all sections of the community. IPPR 4th Floor 14 Buckingham Street London WC2N 6DF T: +44 (0)20 7470 6100 E: [email protected] www.ippr.org Registered charity no. 800065 This paper was first published in November 2015. © 2015 The contents and opinions in this paper are the authors ’ only. POSITIVE IDEAS for CHANGE CONTENTS Summary ............................................................................................................3 1. Devolution unleashed .....................................................................................9 2. Why devolve to counties? ............................................................................11 2.1 Counties and their economic opportunities ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Reorganisation in Nottinghamshire?: Report of Public
    Opinion Research Services | Dorset CCG – Improving Dorset’s Healthcare Consultation 2016/17: Report of Findings May 2017 Loc al Government Reorganisation in Nottinghamshire? Final Report Report of Public and Stakeholder Engagement Opinion Research Services December 2018 Opinion Research Services | The Strand • Swansea • SA1 1AF | 01792 535300 | www.ors.org.uk | [email protected] Opinion Research Services | Nottinghamshire Reorganisation Report – December 2018 Local Government Reorganisation in Nottinghamshire? Report of Public and Stakeholder Engagement December 2018 Opinion Research Services (ORS) The Strand Swansea SA1 1AF 01792 535300 | www.ors.org.uk | [email protected] As with all our studies, findings from this report are subject to Opinion Research Services’ Standard Terms and Conditions of Contract. Any press release or publication of the findings of this report requires the advance approval of ORS. Such approval will only be refused on the grounds of inaccuracy or misrepresentation This study was conducted in accordance with ISO 20252:2012 and ISO 9001:2008. © Copyright December 2018 2 Opinion Research Services | Nottinghamshire Reorganisation Report – December 2018 Table of Contents The ORS Project Team .................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction and Summary ........................................................................ 6 Background ........................................................................................................................... 6 The
    [Show full text]
  • A BORDERLAND and the LOCAL AUTHORITY by Ewa Ganowicz
    POLISH POLITICAL SCIENCE YEARBOOK VOL XLIII 2014 PL ISSN 0208-7375 A BORDERLAND AND THE LOCAL AUTHORITY by Ewa Ganowicz, Bożena Wroniszewska In the era of globalization, unifi cation and the disappearance of borders, paradoxically, increasingly important is their determination, stressing the diversity, regionalization eff orts to achieve autonomy. Th is is evident in the ongoing scientifi c discussion at the junction of many areas where there is the issue of the border is quite clearly marked. Th ese considerations place them in the context of politics, and therefore power, but located locally. Th is authority, its scope, instruments are determined by the nature of the border, which is analyzed in relation to the center. Th us, they are seen as places where all processes are either specifi c or autonomous in relation to those occurring in the centers, or (as they are parts of a greater whole) underlying causes of phenomena are searched beyond their borders1. In literature, the frontier is treated not as the periphery, located far away from the border territories, but diff erent in many ways, integral components of an organization, equipped with a certain degree of independence regarding the implementation of their own needs. 1 T. Zarycki, Peryferie czy pogranicza? Krytyczne spojrzenie na posługiwanie się pojęciem ‘pogranicza’, [in:] B. Jałowiecki, S. Kapralski (eds.) Peryferie i pogranicza: O potrzebie różnorodności, Warszawa 2011, p. 33 – 34. A Borderland and the Local Authority 85 Authority over the borderland, domination over its territory, has always been the subject of action of external forces, but the same border aimed (and this process continues) to a certain independence, articulating their own interests.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Rethinking the Changing Structures of Rural Local Government
    ORE Open Research Exeter TITLE Rethinking the changing structures of rural local government - state power, rural politics and local political strategies? AUTHORS Pemberton, S; Goodwin, Mark JOURNAL Journal of Rural Studies DEPOSITED IN ORE 18 November 2013 This version available at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/13967 COPYRIGHT AND REUSE Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies. A NOTE ON VERSIONS The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of publication Rethinking the changing structures of rural local government - state power, rural politics and local political strategies? Abstract: There is a notable absence in contemporary rural studies - of both a theoretical and empirical nature - concerning the changing nature of rural local government. Despite the scale and significance of successive rounds of local government reorganisation in the UK, very little has been written on this topic from a rural perspective. Instead research on local political change has tended to concentrate on local governance and local partnerships – on the extra-governmental aspects of the governance system – rather than on local government itself. In contrast, this paper draws upon strategic relational state theory to explore the changing structures and institutions of rural local government, and analyse how these can be related to the changing state strategies of those groups which are politically powerful in rural areas. In this respect, the paper draws on current and previous rounds of local government reorganisation to illustrate how new objects of governance, new state strategies and new hegemonic projects are emerging as a consequence of such restructuring processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposition for Local Government Reorganisation in Lancashire
    Proposition for Local Government Reorganisation in Lancashire September 2020 Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 2 1 Case for change and our proposal .......................................................................................................... 6 2 Driving economic recovery and levelling up ................................................................................... 14 3 Innovative delivery in health and social care ................................................................................. 21 4 Better community services ..................................................................................................................... 24 5 Principles of working ................................................................................................................................ 28 6 Next steps and how to take this forward .......................................................................................... 31 Appendix 1 – Economic snapshot .................................................................................................................. 33 1 Executive Summary 2 Executive Summary Current context and the emerging proposal Lancashire is a £30.8bn polycentric economy with 1.5m residents, 732,000 jobs and 53,000 businesses. The county has significant strengths in advanced manufacturing and engineering with innovation assets and major companies. But
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government in England: Structures
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 07104, 1 December 2017 Local government in By Mark Sandford England: structures Inside: 1. Local government structures 2. Functions of local government 3. Elections to local government 4. Boundary changes and restructuring 5. Local government finance 6. Structures: history www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 07104, 1 December 2017 2 Contents Summary 3 1. Local government structures 4 1.1 Local authorities in England 4 1.2 Fire and rescue authorities / Police and Crime Commissioners 4 1.3 Other authorities 5 2. Functions of local government 6 3. Elections to local government 7 3.1 Electoral systems and wards 7 3.2 Elections by halves and thirds 7 3.3 The franchise 8 3.4 Turnout 8 4. Boundary changes and restructuring 9 4.1 Becoming a unitary authority 9 4.2 Consent for structural change 9 4.3 District council mergers 10 4.4 Proposals for structural change 10 5. Local government finance 13 5.1 Sources of finance 13 Council tax 13 Business rates 13 Central government grants 13 Local fees and charges 13 5.2 The Local Government Finance Settlement 14 Funding included 14 Annual practice 14 6. Structures: history 16 6.1 Pre-1972 16 6.2 The 1972-74 reforms 16 6.3 Structural changes since 1972 17 Table: changes to local government structure in England since 1972 17 Appendix: functions of local authorities in England 18 Cover page image copyright: The Council Chamber by Tim Ellis. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 / image cropped.
    [Show full text]
  • A Vision for Local Government in Leicestershire: Strategic Business Case October 2019 Future Leicestershire
    DRAFT A Vision for Local Government in Leicestershire: Strategic Business Case October 2019 Future Leicestershire Foreword by the Leader of the Council The long-term financial situation facing councils is bleak. A one-year cash injection is welcome but with service demands and national funding reductions ramping up, it’s clear we must consider change. Across Leicestershire, local government is facing millions of pounds of savings, meaning we simply can’t go on paying for old fashioned bureaucracy and duplication. Simply put, the financial position of local government in Leicestershire is unsustainable. The time is right to explore the possible solutions to save money and protect residents from Council Tax rises. This must be about services for residents, not structures. This strategic business case demonstrates that a single unitary council would deliver £30 million savings per year, meaning we can put local government in Leicestershire onto a sustainable footing and protect vital front-line services. Residents want easy access to joined-up, effective services and the ability to shape decisions that affect their communities. Ambitious town and parish councils want greater responsibility to support their communities and to represent their views on decisions that affect them. Integrating and simplifying local government services would reduce confusion over who does what and improve services. Creating area committees and devolving services would empower communities, with local councillors responsible and accountable for all their decisions - speeding up work to join up health, social care and housing services would improve support for vulnerable and older people. Leicestershire is changing - with new homes, growing demand for social care and a rising population making planning for the future crucial.
    [Show full text]
  • BUILDING COMMUNITIES Parish and Town Councils in Unitary Northamptonshire
    Northamptonshire County Association of Local Councils BUILDING COMMUNITIES Parish and Town Councils in Unitary Northamptonshire 1 | Page Foreword by the Chairman of the National Association of Local Councils “Never doubt” said Margaret Mead, the US academic, “that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.” This rings so true when I think about how England’s 10,000 councils and 100,000 councillors are building stronger communities. And when I think of their potential to do so much more. Our unique place-based role – local government bodies yet grassroots community organisations – is rapidly changing. We are doing more and increasingly innovating, from health and wellbeing to transport, housing to local economy, community assets to cohesion. And we’re a growing sector with more and more councils being set up across the country in urban areas, new super districts and unitary authorities. That’s why I’m confident parish and town councils are well placed to help government, principal authorities and communities tackle the challenges the country faces. A new way of delivering public services, empowering and strengthening local communities. I am very pleased as the Chairman of the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) to commend this document and wish you all the best in achieving the ambitions set out. Its central tenets: relationships, partnerships, trust, and investment in capacity building are key to fulfilling the sector’s potential: in Northamptonshire and across the country. NALC will watch with interest how you get on and share the lessons with others across England - to ignite and unleash the power of our communities to change not just themselves but the world too.
    [Show full text]
  • Geographical Identifiers in Understanding Society Version 1 Birgitta Rabe Institute for Social and Economic Research University of Essex
    Understanding Society Working Paper Series No. 2011 – 01 March 2011 Updated November 2011 Geographical identifiers in Understanding Society Version 1 Birgitta Rabe Institute for Social and Economic Research University of Essex Geographical identifiers in Understanding Society Version 1 Birgitta Rabe Non-Technical Summary Understanding Society opens a range of new opportunities for local area research. These arise because geographical identifiers are being made available at different geographical levels which enable researchers to merge a wealth of data on area characteristics to individual’s responses. Many of these are freely available for download from the internet. This paper provides a brief introduction to UK geography, gives an overview of the geo-codes available for use with Understanding Society and provides documentation of the available variables. Geographical identifiers in Understanding Society Version 1 Birgitta Rabe Abstract A range of geographical identifiers are being made available for Understanding Society which allow researchers to merge external data at different geographical levels to individual’s responses. Examples of geographical identifiers at higher level include country and Government Office Region; at medium level Local Authority Districts and Travel to Work Areas; at lower level Lower Layer Super Output Areas. This paper provides a brief introduction to UK geography, gives an overview of the geo-codes available for use with Understanding Society and provides documentation of the variables. Keywords: Geographical identifiers; Data linkage; Understanding Society JEL Classifications: C81, Y20 Contact: [email protected] Acknowledgements: The work reported in this paper is part of the Understanding Society programme, funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).
    [Show full text]