Agenda item

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 represented the least bad option, since two would be too remote and four would be fragmented and difficult to manage.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability noted that the two?unitary option had been unpopular, with size seen as its only advantage. He cited Cumbria’s recent experience, where the larger council had struggled financially whilst the smaller had succeeded, concluding that size was not the key issue. He expressed concerns about the four?unitary model being proposed, particularly in relation to boundary changes, the complexity of aggregating services and the loss of corporate knowledge. He noted that given limited resources and the wider financial difficulties, the three?unitary model would be the safest and least complex option.

The Executive Member for Resident Engagement reflected on the many views expressed throughout recent debates and conversations with residents, acknowledging that the reorganisation was not seen as the best outcome. He acknowledged that how services were delivered was more important than boundary lines, noting that district?level services could still be managed locally within larger unitary authorities. He recognised that three-unitary model looked financially strongest, however expressed reservations. He noted that the four?unitary model was too uncertain with unresolved boundary changes. He emphasised that the decision should not be based on party politics, noting residents would live with the outcome for decades.

The Executive Member for Corporate Services advised that it had been difficult to determine the best option when the information available had been insufficient. He acknowledged alternative ideas, such as a single unitary authority with stronger towns and parishes, as raised during the Council discussion. He welcomed the chamber debate, acknowledging that whilst views had been diverse, no one had believed the reorganisation was genuinely good for communities. He expressed concern about the financial burden and noted that the complexity of implementation would be costly and disruptive. He acknowledged that genuine reform was needed, with councils empowered to raise revenue locally, rather than the current system.

The Conservative Group Leader spoke on behalf of the Conservative group. He reiterated strong opposition to the proposed local government reorganisation and to the proposal of an Elected Mayor. Whilst recognising that the decision remained with the Executive, he noted that the Extraordinary Council meeting had produced a majority vote in favour of the four-unitary model, for which it appeared the Executive was not minded to agree.

The Leader of the Council recognised the comments and noted that at the Extraordinary Council meeting a number of Members abstained from the vote, which included Members of the Executive. This was supported by the Executive Member for Corporate Services who noted that they had listened to the views of Members before forming their own opinion.

The Leader thanked officers for the huge amount of effort and work undertaken to get to this point of the process.

The Leader of the Council thanked Members for their contributions and explained that the choice lay between financial sustainability and local democratic representation. He stated that the four?unitary model did not necessarily provide better representation, highlighting large variations in elector?to?councillor ratios and significant inequalities across wards. He noted that boundary reviews could take years to resolve and illustrated how residents in current wards would lose councillors under the four?unitary model. By contrast, he highlighted that the three?unitary model would preserve stronger representation, giving residents more councillors than under the four-unitary model.

The Leader of the Council recognised that following the Extraordinary Council meeting on 13 November 2025, during which Councillors from all parties expressed anger and frustration with the Local Government Re-organisation process, proposed the following amendment to add a second recommendation as follows:

·     Add: That the Executive resolves that the Leader write 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

Councillor Goldspink seconded the amendment.

The Conservative Group Leader confirmed that the group would align to the proposed wording and approach. He noted that the key outcome was to deliver the best result for residents, noting that the majority of the Conservative Group voted for the four-unitary model with others abstaining due to a dislike of the whole process.

The Executive Member for Communities stressed the importance of East Herts’ strong network of town and parish councils, noting that this was unique compared with areas such as Broxbourne and Stevenage, where such councils did not exist. She expressed concern that reorganisation could lead to a collapse into a single model, risking the loss of this local democratic representation.

Having been proposed and seconded, the amendment was put to the meeting and upon a vote being taken, was

declared CARRIED.

Having been proposed and seconded, the recommendation in the report was put to the meeting and upon a vote being taken option b) was CARRIED.

RESOLVED – 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.

Having been proposed and seconded, the additional recommendation was put to the meeting and upon a vote being taken was CARRIED.

RESOLVED – That the Leader write 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.