Is controversial merger of councils in Staffordshire, Shropshire and Worcestershire good for our region - or simply 'number crunching'?

The prospect has caused huge controversy in each of those areas and today a new report suggests any mergers would be of little benefit to the people living there.

The Government's aim to create new "mega councils" has been dismissed by the report as an unnecessary, disruptive move driven by "basic number crunching" that will perpetuate failing models of service delivery. 

The analysis found benefits to the public purse from growing local economies, building housing, preventing future needs and reversing a "catastrophic loss of trust in institutions" far outweigh any short-term savings from consolidating existing council functions. 

It calls on the Government to explain how its objectives will be delivered and what is required in terms of "geography, operating model, design, leadership, capability to fit with new or existing structures of partnerships". 

The potential merger of councils is already proving unpopular. Shropshire is currently split into a Shropshire Council and a Telford & Wrekin Council. Telford's Labour MP, Shaun Davies, opposes the move as does Shropshire Council’s outgoing Tory leader Lezley Picton, who has declared: “Over my dead body”.

There is even a suggestion that Shropshire authorities could combine with some areas of Staffordshire to create a new super council, tied in with Labour's drive to increase the number of regional mayors.

Councillor Picton, who says she won't be seeing re-election at the next council elections, currently runs a council for 323,000 residents.

She thinks the government's plan to have 1.5m people under a strategic authority is undemocratic, adding: "Devolution takes away the very essence of local government

"Decisions should be made locally and a lot of these decisions in future won't be. I don't see it as devolution, I see it as centralisation."

In Staffordshire, there has been more support for change, from Staffordshire County Council at least. Cabinet members at the county council recently voted in favour of a interim reorganisation plan which would see their authority merge with all eight district and borough councils in the county, including Cannock, Stafford and Lichfield.

Today’s new report, commissioned by the District Councils' Network (DCN), adds that realisation of the Government's aims "demands a place and people-based approach to the design of future organisations". 

It said: "It is in places that true change happens, be it in a region or a neighbourhood or a village. All of these are key dimensions in the renewal of public services and, consequently, the renewal of the nation." 

The report added: "The greatest risk is losing momentum and settling for change that isn't change. Instead, (local government reform) must focus on a meaningful renewal and reform - driving economic growth, improving public wellbeing, and restoring faith in the local state." 

The English Devolution White Paper, published in December, required the 164 English district councils to merge with county councils to create large unitary authorities with populations in excess of half a million people. A timetable was imposed, with a deadline for interim proposals set for March 21. The Government's aim is to have the new councils, which would serve about 20 million people, up and running by 2028. 

The report, by Inner Circle Consulting , calls for flexibility over the 500,000 minimum population size so that the Government looks "beyond the lure of theoretical cash savings set out by those arguing that fewer councils means greater savings". 

It warns "the outcome could be driven by risk aversion rather than innovation, and a mistaken conclusion that it would be simplest just to consolidate things as they are into the most basic model of something new". 

The report said conversations with many public service leaders revealed that "without exception" they are finding the current stage of local government reform "personally and professionally challenging". 

It adds: "While many are trying to remain hopeful, they remain deeply concerned that there is insufficient time and safe, reflective spaces to work out what could and should happen next. As one serving chief executive put it: 'the idea that we can politely organise ourselves around this and figure it out together fails to recognise the power dynamics that are in play'." 

Responding to the report, DCN chairman Sam Chapman-Allen said local government needs "to raise our game beyond merely consolidating existing structures to radically rethinking them so that they meet the needs of our communities".  He added: "It's going to take more than mere mergers to bring about growth, end the crisis of trust in local institutions and to move the focus of services from reactive to preventative. To reorganise without determining how we transform is likely thwart central and local government's shared aim of promoting growth, jobs, housing and prevention." 

Mr Chapman-Allen said claims that "mega councils" will deliver savings are "largely theoretical", and called on the Government to rethink requirements. 

"The danger is that so many places - but small cities and rural areas - are likely to be held back if subsumed into a far wider area," he added. 

But there is disagreement in local government about the way best forward. 

Recent analysis for the County Council's Network backed proposals for the creation of new unitary councils in England , arguing that new authorities must cover areas of "at least" 500,000 people or more in order to save billions of pounds and free up investment in local services. 

The CCN report found that replacing the two-tier system with new councils with minimum populations of 500,000 or more could save at least £1.8 billion over five years. 

It also argued that those savings reduce dramatically if county and district authorities are replaced with multiple smaller councils, potentially costing local taxpayers hundreds of millions. 

Commenting on the report, CCN chair Tim Oliver said: "It is absolutely essential that the Government now stick to the statutory criteria they have set out, treating the 500,000 as a minimum not an optimum population scale. 

"This will ensure we create new councils with the scale and capacity to deliver substantial savings to be reinvested in frontline services to the benefit of local taxpayers." 

A Ministry of Housing , Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: "This Government inherited a crumbling local government sector which we are now focused on rebuilding. This means taking tough choices to make local government more sustainable and give taxpayers the services they deserve. 

"Reorganisation will be crucial to creating a more accountable system which will streamline the delivery of local services, and give councils the power and resources they need to deliver for local residents."

STAR COMMENT: 

People are, by nature. territorial. And they can be fiercely proud of where they live.

That instinct is on show as plans to merge councils are moved forward.

There is a distinct rivalry between those who live in the Shropshire Council area and those who reside in Telford & Wrekin. They may share one historic county, but they are very different communities – Shropshire is largely rural while Telford & Wrekin has a more urban feel with a denser population and significant businesses along the M54 corridor.

Staffordshire and Worcestershire have similar differences. They both currently have a two tier system, with councils like Stafford, Cannock, Lichfield and Wyre Forest enjoying some autonomy under the umbrella of a county council.

The Government aims to potentially get rid of these councils under plans for a network of “mega councils” – with Shropshire, Staffordshire and Worcestershire possibly each ruled under a single authority.

A new report questions the wisdom for the move. The report comes from a coalition of district councils, so it clearly comes with an agenda.

But it makes important points, saying that this should not simply be a “number crunching” exercise.

Being bigger doesn’t guarantee more efficiency on services that are already under huge strain. The report suggests more emphasis should be placed on reversing a "catastrophic loss of trust in institutions" rather than seek short-term savings from consolidating existing council functions.

A more nuanced approach is needed – one that listens to those that live and work in each area. A solution for one part of the country isn’t necessarily a solution for all.