Issue - meetings

1.Executive agreed option b) as the as the preferred option:

b) Submit proposal and identify modified three unitary option (3UA modified) as preferred and request that Secretary of State formally modify the proposal by agreeing boundary changes, as set out in the proposal.

2.    Executive resolved that the Leader writes to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government at MHCLG, setting out strong objection to the changes being imposed on the district, the manner in which they are being implemented, and the threat they pose to local democratic representation for residents.

The Leader of the Council presented the report on Local Government Reorganisation in Hertfordshire –

Submission of final proposals. He acknowledged the outcome of the indicative vote from Council on 13 November 2025 and highlighted that the Executive was to express the preference to be included in the submission to Government. It was noted that the submission was required to be made by 28 November 2025 and that it would be Government that made the final decision.

The Leader of the Council proposed the recommendation as set out in the report. The Executive Member for Neighbourhoods seconded the proposal.

The Executive Member for Communities highlighted that the last reorganisation of local government had taken seven years, whereas the current move to unitary authorities was due to take place over two years. She acknowledged that residents would find the principle of fewer layers to government less confusing, however expressed concern that the proposal stemmed from austerity cuts and lacked funding for key issues such as social care for the ageing population. Having reviewed the evidence, they[PM1]  believed the three-unitary model to be the least damaging option, highlighting that East Herts could suffer financially under the four-unitary model and that the two?unitary model would be too large democratically.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth reiterated their views on the consultation process for local government reorganisation, explaining that whilst they would have supported a genuine bottom?up review to improve operational models, the current process had been flawed and constrained. They acknowledged the government’s claim that councils required populations of 500,000, however noted research from the District Council Network which found that smaller councils performed better and were more cost?effective. Despite financial projections, they supported the four?unitary model, noting that evidence and personal experience demonstrated smaller councils could succeed and acknowledged that four councils would be the best option for a large rural area like East Herts and respected the majority view.

The Executive Member for Wellbeing considered the uncertainty of long?term financial projections. They reflected on the burden of wanting to achieve projects, such as swimming pools, but being constrained by limited finances. Whilst recognising strong arguments for local democracy, they emphasised that democracy was only meaningful if it was supported by adequate financial resources.

The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability highlighted that the choice was between protecting local democracy and ensuring fiscal prudence for residents. They noted that each model included a community engagement structure, although none had a monopoly on protecting locality. Drawing on experience, they emphasised the need for financial sustainability to support services and summarised their view on each option. 

The Executive Member for Neighbourhoods advised that they were not in favour of the reorganisation of local government, believing it would not improve service delivery and would instead create fragmentation. They expressed concerns that fewer councillors would face heavier workloads becoming like full?time professionals, which would reduce the diversity of future councillors and harm representation. They concluded that the three-unitary model  ...  view the full minutes text for item 240