Agenda item

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

 

This report sets out the proposed submission to Government, developed by all eleven Hertfordshire local authorities and the Police and Crime Commissioner, for the future organisation of Local Government in Hertfordshire.

 

Given the importance of the issue this report is being presented to Full Council on the 13 November 2025 to facilitate a debate on the options, prior to Cabinet’s meeting on 19 November 2025 at which the decision will be taken as to which option is preferred by the Council.

 

RESOLVED: That Cabinet:

 

(1)   Noted the content of the report, the draft Hertfordshire submission document at Appendices A to E which forms the proposed collective submission to Government on Local Government Reorganisation and the indicative non-binding view of Full Council at its meeting on 13 November 2025.

 

(2)   Resolved the following option:

 

c)     Submit the proposal and identify the modified four unitary option as preferred and request that the Secretary of State formally modify the proposal be agreeing boundary changes, as set out in the proposal.

 

(3)   Delegated authority to the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council to agree any final minor amendments to the Hertfordshire submission document prior to submission to Government by 28 November 2025.

 

(4)   That the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, be authorised to finalise the form of wording for a side letter to be submitted to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to accompany the Council’s formal submission.

 

That the letter shall set out:

 

(a)   the outcome of the Full Council deliberations; and

(b)   the concerns raised by Members regarding the proposed placement of the Arbury ward within alternative unitary configurations, and the need for MHCLG to give this matter full consideration as part of the reorganisation process.

That the finalised letter be issued by the Leader on behalf of the Council.

REASON FOR DECISIONS: On 5 February 2025, the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution wrote to all leaders of two-tier councils to formally invite them to develop proposals for a single tier of local government in their counties. Cabinet is legally required to make the decision as to this Council’s response to the Minister’s request, but the report to Full Council on the 13 November 2025 allowed all councillors to consider and debate this important issue before an indicative non-binding vote, to be considered by Cabinet as part of its decision making on 19 November 2025.

Audio recording – 50 minutes 35 seconds

 

The Chair advised Members that he had received an email from Councillor Tom Tyson and also from the member of public who had made a presentation at Full Council on 13 November.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Ralph Muncer to provide Cabinet with a verbal presentation. Councillor Muncer thanked the Chair for the opportunity and highlighted the following:

 

·       He thanked Councillor Daniel Allen for his openness and transparency with Members throughout the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process.

·       At Full Council on 13 November 2025 Members had voted together on the future governments of the district.

·       The message had been made clear that most Members did not support the four-unitary option for Hertfordshire.

·       He urged Cabinet to choose to listen and to support the wishes expressed at Full Council.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Muncer for his presentation. The Chair reminded Members that the formal advice received from Kings Counsel was that Cabinet must consider the vote from Full Council, but that it must not determine their decision. Cabinet must have an open mind as to act with a predetermined mind would be unlawful. The legal duty of Cabinet was to the residents it served and to the integrity of the decision-making process.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Ian Albert

 

In response to points of clarification, the Monitoring Officer advised that:

 

·       Political pressures were not relevant to the considerations of Cabinet.

·       This decision was an executive function and Cabinet was the decision maker.

·       The legal duty of Cabinet was to approach this with an open mind and determine it solely on the report, appendices, criteria and following the advice from Kings Counsel.

·       Members who were ‘dual hatters’, who held a seat both at district and county council level, must not commit to a decision made at another committee before this Cabinet meeting.

 

The Chief Executive presented the report entitled ‘Local Government Reorganisation in Hertfordshire – Submission of Final Proposals’ and advised that:

 

·       A significant amount of work had already been undertaken to produce this submission and it was recognised that the LGR would continue to have an impact on workloads for the next few years.

·       All local authorities in Hertfordshire had worked together to produce a single submission which met all the criteria set by the Government.

·       The strength of relationships formed within the local authorities would help transition to the future model.

·       The LGR would create lots of opportunities and would bring services together and would also reset relationship with communities. 

·       All the options had advantages and disadvantages and there was no correct answer, as different people would have different views.

·       Shared visions and ambitions that underpinned this submission were set out in paragraph 8.5 of the report.

·       The government would judge any submission against the six criteria set out in paragraph 7.3 of report, which are all equally weighted. All options that met the criteria would be put to public statutory consultation next year. 

·       The reorganisation statutory consultation for all areas on the devolutionary priority programme had commenced today to conclude on 11 January 2026. 

·       The recent decision on LGR in Surrey had been based on financial matters and this was not an indication of how decisions would be made elsewhere.

·       This submission document was as accurate as possible based on the set of assumptions as explained from paragraph 8.8 onwards in the report.

·       Community engagement on LGR options in Hertfordshire took place in September which was summarised in paragraphs 8.14 and 8.15 of the report.

·       No response had yet been received to the letter sent from all local authorities in Hertfordshire to the Secretary of State a couple of weeks ago, as detailed in paragraph 7.3 of the report.

·       Work had already started on the Transition Programme as detailed in paragraph 8.16 of the report and staff and Members would be kept updated with progress.

·       Recommendation 2.1 had been amended to refer to Appendices A-E.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Donna Wright

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Ian Albert

 

In response to questions, the Chief Executive advised that:

 

·       It would be for the new unitary authority to decide the frequency of meetings of the Planning Control Committee.

·       One disadvantage of the three unitary option was the disparity of size of this option.

·       There would be fewer staff redundancies with the four unitary option because of the larger management structure required.

·       Staff would be supported through the whole process with a workforce plan.

·       The two and three unitary options had been based using county divisions and the four unitary option was based on the district wards.

·       The county division was based on a boundary review carried out in 2017 and there were 9 county divisions covering North Hertfordshire.

·       The district boundary review was carried out in 2024 with an average ratio of councillors to electors. 

·       The government would determine the funding allocation for any council.

·       It would be set out in the adopted housing policy of the new unitary authority to where residents would be housed.

·       There would be a review of boundaries in the first term of the new unitary authority as part of the electoral structure. 

 

In response to questions, the Director – Resources advised that:

 

·       The central authority would look at funding and decide how to split this between the different unitary authorities.

·       All of the new unitary options were deemed to be long term financially viable.

 

N.B. There was a break in proceedings during this item and the meeting reconvened at 21:07

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

·       Councillor Donna Wright

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Ian Albert

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Laura Williams

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

 

Points raised during the debate included:

 

·       Residents had voted for the four unitary option whilst Full Council had voted for the two unitary option.

·       The two unitary option would be too large and remote for residents who were used to a district approach.

·       Staffing should not be overlooked and the financial implications of redundancies needed to be considered.

·       The four unitary option kept government local and would minimise any disruption to staff and services.

·       Whichever option was chosen it would need to be future proofed.

·       Localism was important and a small council could be more responsive.

·       The four unitary option offered a balance of accountability and financial sustainability for residents.

·       All three models were viable, but Cabinet should listen to the feedback from residents and stakeholders who wanted the four unitary option.

·       This was just the beginning of the journey and it would ultimately be the Secretary for State to make the final decision for Hertfordshire.

·       Members needed to work together to ensure a successful transition.

·       The four unitary option provided a positive vision for Hertfordshire.

·       Each option carried opportunities but also carried risks.

·       The model must be chosen that would best serve residents for decades to come.

·       Cabinet must vote on this without fear or pressure from any political group.

 

Councillor Laura Williams proposed, with the inclusion of an additional recommendation to send an accompanying side letter to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to outline the position of Full Council and to give consideration to concerns regarding the proposed placement of Arbury ward.

 

Councillor Mick Debenham seconded and, following a vote (a recorded vote having been requested for recommendation 2.2 only), it was:

 

RESOLVED: That Cabinet:

 

(1)   Noted the content of the report, the draft Hertfordshire submission document at Appendices A to E which forms the proposed collective submission to Government on Local Government Reorganisation and the indicative non-binding view of Full Council at its meeting on 13 November 2025.

 

(2)   Resolved the following option:

 

c)     Submit the proposal and identify the modified four unitary option as preferred and request that the Secretary of State formally modify the proposal be agreeing boundary changes, as set out in the proposal.

 

(3)   Delegated authority to the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council to agree any final minor amendments to the Hertfordshire submission document prior to submission to Government by 28 November 2025.

 

(4)   That the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, be authorised to finalise the form of wording for a side letter to be submitted to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to accompany the Council’s formal submission.

 

That the letter shall set out:

 

(a)   the outcome of the Full Council deliberations; and

(b)   the concerns raised by Members regarding the proposed placement of the Arbury ward within alternative unitary configurations, and the need for MHCLG to give this matter full consideration as part of the reorganisation process.

That the finalised letter be issued by the Leader on behalf of the Council.

REASON FOR DECISIONS: On 5 February 2025, the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution wrote to all leaders of two-tier councils to formally invite them to develop proposals for a single tier of local government in their counties. Cabinet is legally required to make the decision as to this Council’s response to the Minister’s request, but the report to Full Council on the 13 November 2025 allowed all councillors to consider and debate this important issue before an indicative non-binding vote, to be considered by Cabinet as part of its decision making on 19 November 2025.

 

VOTE TOTALS:

 

A (preference for two unitary option):             0

B (preference for three unitary option):          0

C (preference for four unitary option):            7

D (no preference):                                           0

 

Cllr Ian Albert                          C

Cllr Amy Allen                         C

Cllr Daniel Allen                      C

Cllr Val Bryant                         C

Cllr Mick Debenham               C

Cllr Laura Williams                  C

Cllr Donna Wright                   C