North Yorkshire County Council response to the MHCLG consultation on Cumbria Unitarisation

The following text is to be submitted through the MHCLG online Consultation Hub at https://consult.communities.gov.uk/governance-reform-and-democracy/cumbria/

The numbered questions are those on the MHCLG online Consultation Hub; the text in italics is the North Yorkshire County Council response to each question.

Response on the proposal for two unitary councils from Allerdale and Copeland Borough Councils (West Cumbria comprising the area covered by Allerdale Borough, Carlisle City and Copeland Borough Councils and East Cumbria comprising the area covered by Barrow Borough, Eden District and South Lakeland District Councils)

5. Is this proposal likely to improve local government and service delivery across each area? Specifically, is it likely to improve council services, will it give greater value for money, generate savings, provide stronger strategic and local leadership and create more sustainable structures?

This will result in the break-up of essential services including children’s services and adult social care, leading to disruption and less effective service delivery. The proposed authorities lack the scale and focus to provide strong leadership for Cumbria.

6. Where it is proposed that services will be delivered on a different geographic footprint than currently, through some form of joint arrangements, is this likely to improve those services? Such services may for example be children’s services, waste collection and disposal, adult health and social care, planning, and transport.

The proposal is for two entirely new authorities with unproven track-records and untested geographies. This provides a complex, risky and disruptive approach to LGR, with no guarantees of sustainability. It results in the greatest disruption, disaggregation of existing performing services and substantial risk to partnerships and complex systems. At the same time, it proposes aggregating former district functions around geographic footprints that do not reflect a credible geography. Disruption on this scale will be damaging and disruptive for people who use services and, more generally, to local government, its partners and the economy.

7. Is this proposal also likely to impact local public services delivered by others, such as police, fire and rescue, and health services?

Yes but negatively

The proposal would result in significant change and disruption. The risks and impacts of these changes are not set out in detail, nor do they properly demonstrate how the transition period would be managed.

8. Do you support this proposal from the councils?

9. Do the unitary councils proposed by this proposal represent a credible geography?

10. Do you have any other comments with regards to the proposed reorganisation of local government in this area?

Response on the proposal for two unitary councils from Barrow Borough and South Lakeland District Councils ('The Bay' comprising the area covered by Barrow Borough, South Lakeland District and Lancaster City Councils and North Cumbria comprising the area covered by Allerdale Borough, Carlisle City, Copeland Borough and Eden District Councils)

11. Is this proposal likely to improve local government and service delivery across each area? Specifically, is it likely to improve council services, will it give greater value for money, generate savings, provide stronger strategic and local leadership and create more sustainable structures?

This will result in the break-up of essential services including children’s services, fire and rescue, and adult social care, leading to disruption and less effective service delivery. The proposed authorities lack the scale and focus to provide strong leadership for Cumbria.

12. Where it is proposed that services will be delivered on a different geographic footprint than currently, through some form of joint arrangements, is this likely to improve those services? Such services may for example be children’s services, waste collection and disposal, adult health and social care, planning, and transport?

The proposal is for entirely new authorities with unproven track-records and untested geographies that split up two existing counties. This provides the most complex, risky and disruptive approach to LGR, with no guarantees of sustainability. It results in the greatest disruption, disaggregation of existing performing services and substantial risk to partnerships and complex systems. At the same time, it proposes aggregating former district functions around geographic footprints that do not reflect a credible geography. Disruption on this scale will be damaging and disruptive for people who use services and, more generally, to local government, its partners and the economy.

13. Is this proposal also likely to impact local public services delivered by others, such as police, fire and rescue, and health services?

Yes but negatively

The proposal requires very significant change and disruption. The risks and impacts of these changes are not set out in detail, nor do they demonstrate how the transition period to create a Combined Fire Authority or transfer responsibilities to the Police and Crime Commissioner would be managed.

14. Do you support this proposal from the councils?

15. Do the unitary councils proposed by this proposal represent a credible geography?

16. Do you have any other comments with regards to the proposed reorganisation of local government in this area?

Response on the proposal for two unitary councils from Carlisle City and Eden District Councils (North Cumbria comprising the area covered by Allerdale Borough, Carlisle City and Eden District Councils and South Cumbria comprising the area covered by Barrow Borough, Copeland Borough and South Lakeland District Councils)

17. Is this proposal likely to improve local government and service delivery across each area? Specifically, is it likely to improve council services, will it give greater value for money, generate savings, provide stronger strategic and local leadership and create more sustainable structures?

18. Where it is proposed that services will be delivered on a different geographic footprint than currently, through some form of joint arrangements, is this likely to improve those services? Such services may for example be children’s services, waste collection and disposal, adult health and social care, planning, and transport.

19. Is this proposal also likely to impact local public services delivered by others, such as police, fire and rescue, and health services?

Yes but negatively

20. Do you support this proposal from the councils

21. Do the unitary councils proposed by this proposal represent a credible geography?

22. Do you have any other comments with regards to the proposed reorganisation of local government in this area?

Response on the proposal for one unitary council from Cumbria County Council (comprising the area of Cumbria County)

23. Is the proposal likely to improve local government and service delivery across each area? Specifically, is it likely to improve council services, will it give greater value for money, generate savings, provide stronger strategic and local leadership and create more sustainable structures?

Yes

One Cumbria proposes a single unitary authority that will transform and improve public services in Cumbria. It will build on the best from all of the current councils and provide a catalyst for real reform, maximising the opportunity to rethink, reform, and reimagine how services are delivered in rural and urban areas.

One Cumbria will deliver better outcomes for residents, businesses, communities and tourists. It will provide the strategic leadership required to lead the county’s recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and boost Cumbria’s contribution to the national levelling up agenda for the UK.

One Cumbria supports local leadership – local decisions made by local people. This is a key pillar within the proposal. One Cumbria supports stronger town and parish councils and more locality working. Giving more powers to Cumbria’s many and varied local communities over what happens in their area.

24. Where it is proposed that services will be delivered on a different geographic footprint than currently, through some form of joint arrangements, is this likely to improve those services? Such services may for example be children’s services, waste collection and disposal, adult health and social care, planning, and transport.

Yes

The One Cumbria proposal retains critical services on a countywide footprint and maximises the potential for joining up services that are currently delivered by the County and six District Councils which will improve service delivery.

The One Cumbria proposal ensures critical services such as adult social care, children’s services (social care and education), public health, highways and fire and rescue remain on a countywide footprint. In addition, bringing together services such as housing, planning and waste collection which will deliver improved services for all.

A single Council for Cumbria will have the capacity and buying power to support Cumbria’s fragile care market as it recovers from COVID-19. Build on the strong countywide partnerships driving continued improvement in Children’s Services and strengthen existing countywide system leadership supporting Cumbria’s schools. Enhance Cumbria Strategic Waste Partnership by bringing together waste collection and waste disposal into a seamless service.

25. Is the proposal also likely to impact local public services delivered by others, such as police, fire and rescue, and health services?

Yes – positive impact.

One Cumbria enables current fire and rescue, police and health services to continue to be delivered without disruption. It also builds on and supports the valued countywide collaboration of key partnerships including the Cumbria Safeguarding Adults Board, Cumbria Safeguarding Children Partnership, and Safer Cumbria.

26. Do you support the proposal from this council?

Yes

One Cumbria will:

• Make services easier to access in Cumbria – simplifying and removing artificial boundaries between councils and places, ending the confusion of who does what.

• Ensure more decisions are taken closer to communities in towns and villages across Cumbria – rather than at district or county level.

• Deliver substantial savings

• Create jobs and boost the economy. Securing more funding and creating greater capacity to deliver strategic improvements that will unlock economic growth and provide a firm foundation for future devolution.

• Provide strong strategic leadership.

• Maximise the benefits of the buying power, resources and capacity of a single council for the whole of Cumbria – ensuring the greatest benefit for all residents, communities, local businesses and the local economy.

• Significantly reduce the number of senior officers and elected councillors – more efficient and effective than having two or more councils.

27. Does the unitary council proposed by this proposal represent a credible geography?

Yes

One Cumbria represents a credible geography. Cumbria has a strong identity and its population of 500,000 meets the Government’s criteria. Cumbria is a self-contained functional economic area. The One Cumbria proposal has boundaries aligned with key partners such as the LEP. The majority of other key strategic partnerships are also aligned to this countywide footprint.

Cumbria has a strong identity, at village, town and whole county level, and our residents, communities, and organisations feel a strong sense of local identity. A single unitary council would result in a population of c500,000, meeting the Government’s criteria. Cumbria is also a self-contained functional economic area.

28. Do you have any other comments with regards to the proposed reorganisation of local government in this area?