Issue - meetings
Funding for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR)
Meeting: 16/06/2026 - Cabinet (Item 11)
11 FUNDING FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION (LGR) 
PDF 164 KB
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR – RESOURCES
To seek agreement on how the LGR funding will be allocated, including decision making processes.
Decision:
RESOLVED: That Cabinet:
(1) Approved that up to £1 million of the available funding be allocated to county-wide costs. Any contribution will be based on a fair share from each Council and can be approved by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Executive Member for Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation and Executive Member for Resources.
(2) Approved that up to £1 million of the available funding be allocated to additional staffing costs, noting that £450k has already been allocated. Any spend can be approved by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council, Executive Member for Resources, Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and political Group Leaders, except where the Constitution already requires different approval processes.
(3) Approved that up to £200k of the available funding can be spent on additional training costs. Any spend can be approved by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Executive Member for Resources.
(4) Approved that any spend is subject to cap of £1 million in 2026/27 and £2 million overall.
REASON FOR DECISIONS: This is intended to provide a practical framework for agreeing LGR costs. It aims to allow timely reactions in what will need to be a fast-moving project.
Minutes:
Audio recording – 58 minutes 55 seconds
The Chair invited Councillor Jon Clayden, as Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, to present the referral on this item. Councillor Clayden advised that:
· Some discussion had taken place on staff training costs and the balance between training for new and existing staff.
· A query regarding how county-wide costs would be allocated had been answered by the Director – Resources.
· Discussion over transparency on decision-making and where projects needed to be scaled back as they moved to Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) had also taken place.
· An amendment had been made to recommendation 2.2 in the report to include that any spend can be approved by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair of the Overview of Scrutiny Committee and political Group Leaders in addition to the Leader of the Council and Executive Member for Resources.
N.B. Councillor Daniel Allen left the Council Chamber at 20:31.
The following Members asked questions:
· Councillor Donna Wright
· Councillor Mick Debenham
· Councillor Daniel Allen
In response to questions, Councillor Val Bryant advised that she, as the Leader of the Council, and the Executive Member for Resources were the only Members with a coherent view on staff training due to their attendance at ongoing meetings.
N.B. Councillors Daniel Allen and Tamsin Thomas entered the Council Chamber at 20:33.
In response to questions, Councillor Jon Clayden advised that neither he nor the political Group Leaders would have the decision-making power on spending, and that they would just be consultees along with the Leader of the Council and Executive Member for Resources.
In response to questions, Councillor Laura Williams advised that training plans across all 11 authorities in Hertfordshire had already been agreed by the Herts Leaders Group.
Councillor Ian Albert, as the Executive Member for Resources, presented the report entitled ‘Funding for Local Government Reorganisation’ and advised that:
· A delegated decision had allocated £450K for four HR and IT posts to address significant LGR workload pressures, and recruitment for those was ongoing, which meant that the full funding allocation might not be needed.
· £1M of total funding for the 2026/27 financial year and £1M for the 2027/28 financial year had been agreed.
· Spending related to staff backfill and county-wide costs would likely be made through delegated decision notices.
· Spending on learning and development would be allocated in tranches due to the low amounts and existing training budgets, and monitoring would take place on this through quarterly reports.
· Officer time spent on LGR was already significant and would only increase.
· A balance for spending on training for new and existing staff was recognised.
· Transparency on spending would be important to ensure scrutiny from the Overview & Scrutiny and Finance, Audit and Risk Committees.
· A huge number of important projects were taking place, and staff were being stretched in different directions, so there was a need to manage priorities.
· They were happy to accept the amendment suggested by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee with the recognition that decisions would be made ... view the full minutes text for item 11
Meeting: 09/06/2026 - Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Item 13)
13 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION FUNDING PDF 164 KB
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR – RESOURCES
To seek agreement on how the LGR funding will be allocated, including decision making processes.
Decision:
RECOMMENDED TO CABINET:
(1) That Cabinet approve that up to £1 million of the available funding be allocated to county-wide costs. Any contribution will be based on a fair share from each Council and can be approved by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Executive Member for Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation and Executive Member for Resources.
(2) That Cabinet approve that up to £1 million of the available funding be allocated to additional staffing costs, noting that £450k has already been allocated. Any spend can be approved by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council, Executive Member for Resources, Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and political Group Leaders, except where the Constitution already requires different approval processes.
(3) That Cabinet approve that up to £200k of the available funding can be spent on additional training costs. Any spend can be approved by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Executive Member for Resources.
(4) That any spend is subject to a cap of £1 million in 2026/27 and £2 million overall.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: This is intended to provide a practical framework for agreeing LGR costs. It aims to allow timely reactions in what will need to be a fast-moving project.
Minutes:
Audio recording – 01 hours 46 minutes 22 seconds
Councillor Ian Albert, as Executive Member for Resources, presented the report entitled ‘Funding for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR)’ and advised that:
· This report was seeking agreement on how the LGR reserve for the next two financial years would be allocated, and the decision making and reporting mechanisms for this.
· Spending on LGR could be put into three categories, which were county-wide costs, additional staffing costs arising from LGR related work and staff training costs.
· £1 million would be allocated to county-wide costs, with any contribution to this being a fair share contributed by each council, and this would be approved by the Chief Executive in consultation with executive members.
· Up to £200K would be spent on staff training costs, which would be hugely important in the context of LGR.
· The recent delegated decision allocated £450K of the LGR funding to four full-time, two-year, fixed-term posts in HR and IT to address workload pressures.
· However, recruitment was ongoing for these posts, and they would not necessarily need to spend the full allocation.
· Delegated decisions were likely to be published for spending on staff backfill and county-wide costs, but may not be needed for the learning and development allocations as these transactions would be low value and allocated in tranches, but they would be monitored in the quarterly budget reports.
· Proposals for spending would go the Leadership Team for review and prioritisation in the context of the available budget.
· Significant officer time spent on LGR related work would continue.
· Centralised spending would be easier to compartmentalize through workstream leads and project plans.
· Funding for the LGR Reserve was fixed and they might need to reevaluate the allocation as part of the budget setting next year, but currently it was robust.
· Points raised about managing funds effectively on large projects such as LGR would be taken onboard.
· There would be continued opportunities for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Finance, Audit and Risk Committee to review spending on LGR.
The following Members asked questions:
· Councillor Claire Winchester
· Councillor Paul Ward
· Councillor Ralph Muncer
· Councillor Jon Clayden
· Councillor Sadie Billing
In response to questions, the Director – Resources advised that:
· The £200K for additional staff training costs had been set after conversations with the Learning and Development Manager, and most costs had been absorbed within existing budgets so far, meaning it was a realistic figure.
· More spending on new positions would not take place soon as the immediate workload pressures had been addressed.
· Future recruitment would occur as LGR related work grew more intense.
· If additional staff were needed, there would be a need to make timely decisions, and the benefit of wider consultation on spending would have to be considered.
· Risk from potential redundancy costs following LGR due to appointing additional staff was a factor, but the risk of not appointing additional staff was even greater.
· It was speculated that additional staff might be needed beyond LGR.
· The county-wide costs went towards a central ... view the full minutes text for item 13