News

Notts council leaders welcome local government reform but reject idea of Nottingham expansion

By Lauren Monaghan, Junior Local Democracy Reporter

---

Nottinghamshire political leaders have welcomed the merging of councils in the Government’s proposed plans to overhaul local authorities, but they say Nottingham City Council’s borders should not be expanded.

The Labour Government’s English Devolution White Paper from December 2024 supported giving powers back to local areas through the creation of more “strategic authorities” and new combined councils.

These would replace the existing ‘two-tier’ structures like here in Nottinghamshire, where services are split between lower and upper-tier councils.

Nottingham City Council is a unitary authority, meaning it has sole responsibility for all the services in its area such as social care, waste collection and disposal and parks.

However, in the county, the ‘upper-tier’ county council is responsible for services such as social care, education and waste disposal.

In districts and boroughs, the seven, smaller lower-tier councils have responsibility for services like housing, planning, bin collections and parks.

Abolishing the two-tier structure would mean all seven of Nottinghamshire’s district and boroughs could disappear by 2027 or 2028.

The leaders of the county’s councils saw the suggested nine options for local government reorganisation in Nottinghamshire last Friday (February 14).

The first was a ‘super council’, which would cover the city and county.

The second would see the City Council remain, with the county taking on the services run by the districts and boroughs, meaning boundaries would remain similar.

The remaining options discussed city expansion, which includes varying degrees of the city expanding into Gedling, Broxtowe or Rushcliffe.

But this later option was something rejected by Councillor Sam Smith (Con), who’s the leader of the county council.

He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: “If the city [council] take over their areas they’re going to lose access to services, access to libraries, get worse care and pay more tax.

“That is the strongest reason why I’m not in favour of city expansion – it means worse services.”

He added if a reorganisation of the councils in the county can “smooth” out and “streamline” services to create a “one-stop shop” for residents accessing council services, then he supports the changes.

Cllr Neil Clarke (Con), who’s leader of Rushcliffe Borough Council, added: “My immediate priority is to protect the residents of Rushcliffe and the good services they receive.

“Any suggestion that our area would be combined into the city would result in a severely reduced standard of service and their tax would go up.

“It’s completely unacceptable talking about Rushcliffe becoming a part of the City.”

In a statement, Rushcliffe’s Labour MP, James Naish, said “financially sustainable authorities” need to be created in line with the government’s plans.

He believes “limited changes” to existing boundaries can be achieved.

However, he noted the higher ‘tax pull’ in the south of Nottinghamshire compared with the north, where service demand is “higher in the north”.

For example, more than half of all homes in Mansfield are of the lower Band A council tax banding, whereas greater numbers of Rushcliffe homes are in Band D and above.

The MP says that this would mean a ‘North Notts Council’ would find it harder to ‘pay its way’.

Nottingham City Council was approached for comment on the proposed changes.

A spokesman referred the Local Democracy Reporting Service back to the joint statement made on behalf of all the councils on February 7, which reads: “Councils have until March 21 to submit initial plans and preparatory work across all nine local authorities have already started.

“This is the biggest shake-up of local government in 50 years and following the initial plan, councils will be asked to submit their final proposals by 28 November.

“All nine councils will continue to work together in the public interest, exploring all options available that meet the Government’s requirements.”