The Leader of the Council, Councillor Tim Gibson, introduced the report which set out the Council’s response to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) request for representations on the Structural Change Order (SCO) relating to Local Government Reorganisation.

He proposed the amended recommendations following consideration by the Policy and Resources Committee, including amendments to the transitional governance model, joint committee membership, alignment of parish elections, and the preferred naming convention.

The recommendations were seconded by the Vice-Chair of Policy and Resources Committee, Councillor Lloyd Bowen, who reserved his right to speak.

Members were invited to make comments and these included:

• Clarification was sought regarding the proposed membership of joint committees, with concern expressed that the drafting could lead to an excessively large committee if based on predecessor districts rather than assembly areas;
• concern that local government reorganisation represented a significant cost and diversion of officer time and resources away from service delivery and local priorities;
• the view that the programme created opportunity costs, including delays to strategic projects and impacts on long-term council visions;
• concern regarding the limited information available to Members and the public at this stage of the process and difficulty in assessing the implications of the proposals;
• acknowledgement that, despite concerns, the Council was required to engage constructively with the process and respond to Government;
• a request that maps be included as part of the Council’s submission to clearly illustrate the geographical options;
• concern regarding the potential duplication of services (e.g. social care, highways, education) under multiple unitary authorities; and
• support for aligning parish and town council elections with future unitary elections  to improve efficiency and clarity.

Councillor Charles Gibson proposed an amendment and seconded by Councillor Rich Lehman to replace the preferred naming convention in Table 3 with the alternative locally-derived naming options set out in Table 4.

Members debated the amendment and comments included:

• Differing views on the preferred naming convention, with some Members supporting simple geographic descriptors (e.g. North, South, East, West Kent) for clarity, while others favoured locally distinctive names to reflect identity and history; and

• concern that naming should ultimately be determined by future authorities in consultation with residents.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was lost.

On returning to the substantive, further comments were invited and these included:

• The Council’s response formed part of a wider consultation and would not determine the final outcome;
• the Government would ultimately decide the structure and naming of any new authorities; and
• the Council’s role was to provide a clear and practical response to influence the implementation arrangements.

Resolved:

(1)  To approve that the transitional governance models for all geography options be ‘New Council with Joint Committee’

(2)  To approve the proposed membership of the Joint Committees as set out below:

(3)  To approve that the Chair and Deputy Chair of each Joint Committee be appointed by the relevant Joint Committee at its inaugural meeting.

(4)  To approve that the proposed Joint Committees should not be subject to political balance requirements.

(5)  To approve that each Joint Committee agree, at its inaugural meeting, the Returning Officer for the first election to its relevant Shadow Authority.

(6)  To approve the proposed membership of the Implementation Team, with the Kent County Council Chief Executive appointed as Senior Responsible Officer for the overall programme, the Medway Council Chief Executive appointed as Deputy Senior Responsible Officer, and the Unitary Senior Responsible Officers appointed from the existing pool of borough and district Chief Executives.

(7)  To approve that parish and town council elections should be aligned with elections to the new unitary authorities, with the first term aligning with elections to the new authorities for 5 years.

(8)  To approve the preferred naming convention for the new councils as outlined in Table 3 in section 2.15 of this report, with the new authorities to work with residents to agree any changes in names of each new council.

(9)  To note that no further modelling has been undertaken on councillor numbers for the proposed geographic models under consideration.

(10)               That delegation be granted to the chief executive to submit the council’s response to MHCLG and, in consultation with the Leader, make any minor amendments as required.