Local government re-organisation must ‘feel’ right to the person on the street

The Government is set to consult on changes to Local Government before the end of the month

What a ridiculous title this blog has. The person on the street couldn’t care less about the finer points of local government reorganisation could they? They just want their bins emptied on time and their road not to have potholes.

Well, yes. So when the government consults on changes to local government (which we expect at the end of the month), don’t expect there to be people clamouring to respond. Back in 2012 a referendum on whether the city of Manchester should change from a Leader and Cabinet model of governance to a Mayor-led one like Salford had a dismal 25% turnout. Salford, which did make the switch, did so following the results of a referendum which had a turnout of just 18% in 2012.

But while most people don’t engage much with this dry subject when given the opportunity, there does remain strong views on the geography of local governance structures, which can have an impact at the ballot box.

Last month Centre for Cities published a white paper which called for a “pragmatic” approach to English Devolution. The pragmatism was proposals for new authorities or combined authorities based on economic geographies rather than those with which people might identify.

Notable examples of what this would mean for us in the north included:

• combining High Peak and East Cheshire with Greater Manchester
• including bits of North and East Derbyshire within South Yorkshire
• adding Cheshire West and West Lancashire into Liverpool City Region.

The full map of their recommendations is here.

These are logical proposals. What’s happening in Greater Manchester is arguably far more relevant to Glossop than what’s happening in Derby. Indeed, it’s proposed that the railway line to Glossop is incorporated as part of Greater Manchester’s Bee Network, despite being outside of the Greater Manchester boundary; and if you’re watching ITV at 6pm in Buxton you’ll get Granada Reports as opposed to Calendar.

Despite the logic and obvious benefits of larger governance footprints (economies of scale, strategic planning etc.), there are risks with taking decision making even further away from the people it impacts.

We’ve seen repeatedly in places across the country a rise in Independent and hyper-local councillors to rail against decisions made in city and county halls which they claim neglect more outlying towns and villages. From Oldham to Leeds, North Yorkshire to Bolton and places in between, the resentment of a bigger town that is perceived to have ‘taken over’ or seen to benefit the most from decisions taken by the local council can be exploited.

But what does it matter if more independents get elected? And, if it does then what can be done to address what drives people to elect them?

Well in many cases, the election of independents has led to unstable administrations and unsound planning decisions. The clearest, most recent example of this is Oldham’s attempts to withdraw from Places for Everyone. A decision that, if executed, would lead to the authority having to deliver more homes, not fewer, contrary to the supposed motivations of those calling for the withdrawal.

Part of the answer to this, I’d argue, is a layer of governance on boundaries people identify with. By all means, the strategic stuff like children’s and adults services, planning and infrastructure decisions can go up to an authority on a bigger footprint as the Centre for Cities suggests. But to combat the feelings of disconnection from authority that many communities feel would require counterbalancing with empowered Parish or Town Council-sized authorities for everywhere which have responsibility, or at least meaningful influence, over the things people see on their street. Give them the responsibility to look after community buildings and parks, for example, and you may be able to empower local communities to care more about the place they call home because they are able to make a real difference and have genuine, local accountability.

Local Government reorganisation is long overdue, but its architects should appreciate that it needs to take account of people’s emotions, and not solely the practicalities.

Here at Cavendish, we’re experts in understanding how local government works and how to engage effectively with local authorities. We’d love to talk to you about how you can best make your voice heard and shape what happens next. Get in touch.