The Labour Government intends to reorganise Local Government; this will directly affect Derby City Council. This change is being progressed quickly with challenging timescales.

The Government published its “White Paper” in December 2024. In January 2025 Derby City Council passed a motion which delegated, to the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council, the task of working with the other Councils in Derbyshire, and

“..to establish the most appropriate model for local government in Derby and Derbyshire, pending further approval by this Council”

The deadline for the final proposal is 28 November 2025

A letter was sent to all Councils on 5 February 2025, by Jim McMahon OBE MP, Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution. making a specific request that:

“An interim plan should be provided to Government on or before 21 March 2025“

And then…

“My officials will provide feedback on your plan to help support you to develop final proposals”

The purpose of the Meeting on 13 March 2025 was for the Council to agree the interim proposals suggested by all Councils in Derbyshire, prior to the deadline of 21 March 2025.

It was reported into the meeting by the Leader of the Council that there were 16 proposals tabled during the initial meetings. Many of those did not meet the Government’s basic criteria. These being, that each of the new Councils should have a population of around 500,000; represents a sensible economic area, a sensible geography, no/limited boundary changes, and be able to delivery improved outcomes.

These 16 proposals were whittled down to just 2. Essentially a South Derbyshire and a North Derbyshire; the 2 options being whether Amber Valley Borough Council would be in the North or South

One of the options which had been discounted, was the status quo, where a single County authority “doughnuts” Derby City Council.

During the Derby City Council meeting on Wednesday the Leader set out the process that had been followed, and emphasised that the proposal on the table was an interim “non-binding” option which could be changed.

Amendments were tabled by Cllrs Kus and Care which were agreed unanimously.

Cllr Hassall (Conservative Leader) raised questions over the speed of the process and that more time was required to assess all of the options. It was highlighted that the timescales were set by Government. Conservative Cllr Wright engaged in extreme “hair splitting” by suggesting that, as the Minister’s letter merely “asked” for a response, and that it was therefore optional; he opined that it would only have been mandatory had the word “must” been used.

Cllr Pattison tabled a motion that effectively delayed the agreement on the proposal to beyond 21 March 2025.

The Chief Executive was asked to comment on whether, in his opinion, there was some discretion on whether it was necessary to submit a proposal by 21 March 2025.

“There is a deadline. My experience as a….senior civil servant is that when the Governement asks us to submit by a date that is probably the best thing for us to do, so my advice to you as member would be…that it wouldn’t be sensible for us to suggest another deadline because I’m guessing that the vast majority of local Councils …will hit the deadline”

His expectation was that all of the other Derbyshire councils will be submitting by 21 March

He went on to remind all Cllrs that they had delegated the task to him and the Leader of the Council to negotiate a set of proposals and bring them back to the Council Meeting

“That is exactly what we have done”

To address those Cllrs who felt that the meeting was making a major decision, he clarified:

“…the Secretary of State, today, has just said, that it’s a “barometer”…it is non-binding. It’s also important to stress that the decision about Local Goverment Reorganisation will be taken by Ministers”

Despite the advice from the Chief Executive, the Council agreed to Cllr Pattison’s amendment which means that Derby City Council will not make a proposal submission by 21 March 2025. Quite possibly the only Council out of the 317 councils in England not to hit the deadline.

It’s not clear where that leaves Derby!

Comment

The most surprising fact from the initial discussions was that there were 16 options tabled to reorganise the County.

Derbyshire has a population of 1.1m which means that it needs to be split into 2. As the County, geographically, is long and thin then there are, at best, 2 options; in reality just 1. It has always been an aspiration of the Conservatives in Derby to extend the City boundary; the Derby economic area extends into the neighbouring districts and boroughs. Derby’s housing growth targets are quite often met by neighbouring Councils. Major transport links are dependent on neighbouring districts.

Without getting drawn into the details the 2 options that have been proposed are the most obvious and most sensible. More data and more time is unlikely to change this basic conclusion.

The Opposition groups seem to feel the need to re-analyse all of the other discounted options, surround themselves with data, in order to make an indicative “non-binding” proposal; the very task that they had previously delegated to the Leader and the Chief Executive.

On the back of the shambolic Budget meeting on 27 February “Derby City Council’s 5.5 hour Budget meeting delivers nothing for the City”, this is just another example of how the Opposition in Derby City Council is fixated on disrupting proceedings for political gain. If their intention isn’t to disrupt then their limited command of the subject, general dithering and indecisiveness manifests itself in such a way as to give that impression.

This proposal will be submitted by 21 March 2025 by the other Councils in Derbyshire, presumably without the Derby City Council logo, and some confusion as to whether Derby is in support of it.

Some Cllrs say that they want more time….they don’t have it! Life quite often comes with challenging deadlines and dithering is not an option. The majority of Cllrs clearly were not listening when the Chief Executive said that it “would not be sensible” to delay – but delay is exactly what the majority did.