On 22/07/2026 11:20, Martin Wynne wrote:
On 22/07/2026 10:59, Mark Goodge wrote:
But there's likely to be a change of emphasis. Rayner's original
blueprint called for larger authorities of at least half a million
people. Reed was more sympathetic to arguments for smaller unitaries,
and has accepted proposals (eg, in Worcestershire) which don't meet
that initial requirement.
The Worcestershire split is now a recipe for chaos. The two authorities
are talking about "shared" services for almost all the previous County
Council services (Highways, etc.) But now with two separate councils
making the decisions, and likely never to agree.
Shared services will certainly be an option to be considered by the new
authorities when they come into existence (which won't be until next
year). Not just in Worcestershire, but in other places, such as Essex,
where a county council will be split.
But this isn't new. Shared services are already a reality among many
district level councils. Taking Worcestershire as an example, planning
and legal services are shared between Wychavon and Malvern Hills, and
also between Bromsgrove and Redditch. Wychavon already provides IT
services for all three of the councils which will make up the new South
Worcestershire council. And licensing is handled at county-wide level by
Worcestershire Regulatory Services on behalf of all seven councils.
So extending that principle to things like highways and social care
isn't a novel concept. How it would work in practice is one of the key
decisions that the new authorities will need to make. But the WRS model,
of a joint management board comprising councillors from all relevant
councils and its own directly employed staff, would be the most obvious
solution.
Mark
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
