Agenda item

·       That Policy and Resources Committee notes the indicative resolution of Full Council on 21 October 2025 and agrees the following:

            Either:

·       To submit the proposal and identify the two unitary option (2UA) as preferred option.

·       To submit the proposal and identify modified three unitary option (3UA modified) as preferred and request that SoS formally modify the proposal by agreeing boundary changes as set out in the proposal.

·       To submit the proposal and identify the modified four unitary option (4UA modified) as preferred and request that the SoS formally modify the proposal by boundary changes as set out in the proposal.

Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst introduced the report.

Members debated the LGR options; 2, 3 and 4 unitary authorities, with a focus on public consultation results, financial implications, local representation and service delivery impacts. Several Members expressed concern about the least popular 3 unitary model, regarding its financial viability, social housing issues and geographic understanding. The 4 unitary model is favoured by some due to public preference, community similarities, and potential for better service delivery and local democracy, despite higher payback periods. Other Members advocated for the 3 unitary model as a balanced approach between cost savings and effective management of services. There was also skepticism about the government’s role and timing of information release.

The Chair clarified misinformation about the ring-fenced nature of the housing revenue account and emphasised that decisions on management will be made by future elected Members. The Chair also highlighted the challenges of multiple financial models considered for the restructuring, noting the difficulties with the 4 unitary model due to initial deficits and social deprivation concerns. The conversation also touched on the timeline pressures for submitting the proposals, the importance of public consultation on all three proposed models, and the hope that the government respects public opinion in the final decision. There was also mention of recent government changes such as the abolition of Police and Crime Commissioners, and the implications for local leadership roles.

Officers also clarified the legal constraints on using general fund money to support the housing revenue account. They elaborated on the financial mechanism, including land transfers and appropriates at below cost, affecting the housing revenue account, highlighting challenges in policy consistency across different districts if a single council is formed. The differences in budget allocation between Dacorum and Three Rivers were emphasised, particularly regarding social housing expenditure. Officers also reinforced that the housing revenue account is governed by statue, and distinct from the general fund, explaining how affordable housing policies operate differently across districts, with some housing managed in-house and others through housing associations.

Members also highlighted the potential consequences of reducing elected Members in district and borough councils, which could increase the responsibilities and pressure on parish and town councils. There is concern about areas currently lacking such local councils and how they will be integrated into the new system. The handling of Surrey by the government is cited as a cause for worry about similar treatment in Hertfordshire.

Additionally, there was emphasis on the importance of ensuring widespread public awareness, noting that many residents seem uninformed about the issue. The Chair responded by highlighting the ongoing communication efforts, including multiple public meetings, social media videos, and plans for continued outreach.

Members stressed the importance of maximising public participation in the government consultation, urging the Council to respect the option favoured by the majority of respondents to maintain public confidence.

Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst moved the recommendation as set out in the report.

On being put to the Committee, the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

RESOLVED:

That Policy and Resources Committee notes the indicative resolution of Full Council on 21 October 2025 and agrees the following:

Either:

• To submit the proposal and identify the two unitary option (2UA) as preferred option.

• To submit the proposal and identify modified three unitary option (3UA modified) as preferred and request that SoS formally modify the proposal by agreeing boundary changes as set out in the proposal.

• To submit the proposal and identify the modified four unitary option (4UA modified) as preferred and request that the SoS formally modify the proposal by boundary changes as set out in the proposal.