The Leader advised that, due to the importance of the item, it had been agreed that all Members would be invited to the Cabinet meeting to provide an opportunity for a breadth of questioning to take place. Those Members that were in attendance (listed above) were invited to the table to take part in the discussion.

Members were informed that, on 16 December 2024, the Government published the ‘English Devolution White Paper - Power and partnerships: Foundations for growth’ which made clear the Government’s intention to deliver both devolution and local government reorganisation. Following the publication, Kent and Medway Councils submitted a bid to be included in the Devolution Priority Programme (DPP) to deliver mayoral devolution at pace. On 5 February 2025, the Councils received notification that Kent had not been selected to be part of the DPP, however, they were invited to submit a bid for Local Government Reorganisation. The Government stated that it expected local Leaders to work collaboratively and proactively to produce robust and sustainable unitary proposals that were in the best interests of the whole area.

Since the announcements, officers and Leaders across Kent had been working to pull together the initial submission for 21 March 2025; the current draft was attached at appendix two to the report.  The Leader advised that the draft submission was a live document and was therefore subject to ongoing discussions/change up to the date of submission.

The Leader advised that the intention was not to include specific proposals for the geographic make-up of unitaries in Kent as part of the initial submission as work was ongoing but, as the response made clear, there was a consensus amongst Kent Council Leaders that there should be either three or four unitaries within the county. A number of Councils had commissioned additional analytical work to be completed, based on the four proposed unitary models set out. GBC was not part of that exercise however the outcomes had been shared and were attached at appendix three for information; the Leader stated that his view was that appendix 3 should not be included in the initial submission. 

Following the interim submission, the intention will be for Kent Councils to procure one or more external partners to support them in the process and to ensure that options and the submission are independently evaluated. The full proposals will need to be submitted by 28 November 2025.

The Leader advised that, following the full submission on 28 November 2025, the final decision will rest with the Secretary of State who will either accept, refuse or amend. Therefore, it was important for all Members to provide any views they may have to the Leader as the Leader would be signing off the submissions on behalf of GBC.

The Leader welcomed views from Members particularly in relation to the following areas: -

·        Authority size - the White Paper initially indicated that the population size must be 500k. This had been taken as a cast iron number therefore the current proposals focused on that number however, meeting with Ministers recently, there was a view that the population size could be less than 500k if it could be justified for example in terms of growth within an authority area.

·        Locality and relationship of communities (including demographics) – the Leader felt that the current proposals focused on the financial aspect however more needed to be included on the locality and relationship of communities.

·        Local Government Financing in terms of the local tax rate/base. More affluent areas will be able to draw in significant funding compared to other areas which may have high deprivation, poverty and unemployment levels. The submission will need to seek the Government’s view on how it intended to assess the local tax rates and areas.

·        Councillor to elector ratios– the Government had indicated, that within each authority area, there would be a Member representation of between 60-100 with a constituent size of between 4-8k.

Members felt that it was important for Gravesham to keep its Borough/Council identity and that consideration needed to be given to how authorities can keep those key identities. It was important not to take too many powers away from the local community; some decisions needed to still be taken locally.

The duty of elected Members was to represent their local community. At a Borough level, Members can be community activists and undertake their role alongside their day-to-day work-life commitments therefore encouraging a diversity of Members from all walks of life in terms of age, gender, background, financial circumstances etc. It was felt that moving to a larger authority and becoming upper tier would require more time being given to that elected Member role therefore discouraging people from all walks of life unless the Member allowance was reflective of the commitment required. It was important for the diversity of democratic representation to be retained.

With regard to authority size and the 500k threshold, it was felt that consideration needed to be given to the future growth within that authority area therefore the threshold could be lower to take into account future growth. Members agreed that there should be no less than four unitaries within Kent and that five unitaries would be more beneficial and should be considered as an option. Five unitaries would also bring the councillor to elector ratios closer therefore addressing the above-mentioned concerns.

With regard to Local Government Financing, it was important for this to be considered and assessed by the Government. It was also key that those authorities merging would not absorb the significant debt of others which would therefore be shared amongst all residents. It was also important that for those authorities being merged and the services/powers that currently sit within the upper tier, any future decisions will be value based and not necessarily cost based, as those decisions may have a significant impact on the growing population/residents within the new authority areas.

Members requested that, where practicable, the document be simplified only answering those questions being asked by the Government, written in plain English and having a strong focus on the community and community linkages between the merging authorities. It was important that Gravesham defends itself due to its social and demographic composition, as detailed within appendix three, and it also having exceptionally high rates of new businesses and economic growth, one of the highest net asset values in Kent, having one of the largest workforce of District Councils in Kent, being one of the largest social housing providers within the local authority sector and also having a successful local authority trading company. In terms of wider local engagement to help shape the developing proposals, it was also important for the education sector to be consultees along with key community groups if time allowed.

With regard to concerns around the population growth and unitaries being large authorities, the Leader advised that, the view was that those concerns could be addressed through taking forward/establishing additional Parish and Town Councils and introducing Area Committees. The Leader advised that he also felt that artificial intelligence (AI) also needed to be incorporated into the submission. Members acknowledged the opportunity to establish additional Parish and Town Councils however expressed concern that too many could inadvertently replicate the current two tier set up. It was also acknowledged that Gravesham had a minimal number of Parish Councils compared to other authorities therefore amalgamation of authorities could create excessive numbers.

The Leader stated that the submission was only in relation to Local Government Restructure however a future discussion would need to be had in relation to devolution and the make-up/powers transferred to the Strategic Mayor.

The Leader thanked those Members in attendance for their views and welcomed those Members not in attendance to submit any views they may have to him outside of the meeting. The Leader advised that he was minded to support the draft plan-Kent submission but would not support the inclusion of appendix 3.

Note:At the conclusion of the item, the meeting was adjourned in order to provide any opportunity for Non-Cabinet Members to leave the table/meeting.