The Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation Cabinet Committee met to discuss and consider the KCC Options Appraisal and Criteria Assessment of Current Local Government Reorganisation Options, and to note the commitment from Kent County Council (KCC) to fully take part in the process to develop a shared options appraisal with partners. The committee also noted the commitment to bringing future papers to the committee and cabinet as the work progresses to inform the development of KCC's policy position and next steps. During the meeting, members raised concerns about public consultation, the financial implications of the proposals, and the potential impact on different areas within Kent.

Local Government Reorganisation Options Appraisal

The main item discussed was the KCC Options Appraisal and Criteria Assessment of Current Local Government Reorganisation Options. The report presented an internal options appraisal for local government reorganisation (LGR) in Kent, outlining different options for unitary councils and assessing them against government criteria. The paper was introduced by Mr Whittle and Mrs Dixon-Sherrard, who explained that the appraisal was a tool to aid understanding and that the council would need to form a policy position to ensure KCC's interests were represented. The report considered six options:

• Option 1: Three unitary authorities (North, East, West)
• Option 2: Four unitary authorities (North, East, South, West)
• Option 3: Four unitary authorities (North, East, Mid, West)
• Option 4: Four unitary authorities (North, East, Mid, West)
• Option 5: Two unitary authorities (East, West)
• Option 6: One unitary authority covering all of Kent and Medway (benchmark option)

The report highlighted several cross-cutting issues, including disparities in wealth and service demand between different parts of Kent, and the challenges of managing the UK's border with Europe. It also noted that the government's expectation for LGR and devolution to go hand in hand was not currently being met in Kent, which could put the county at a disadvantage.

The report included several appendices:

• Detailed Scoring Table for Options Appraisal
• Rationale for Options Appraisal Scoring
• Financial Assessment Report
• Engagement Assessment Report
• Democracy and Local Identity Assessment Report and Appendices
• Options Profiles
• Housing Growth Analysis Report

Public Consultation and Awareness

Several members, including Councillor Maxine Fothergill, expressed concern about the lack of public awareness and consultation regarding the proposed changes. Councillor Maxine Fothergill asked:

will you support the committee recognising the democratic principles that no decision of this scale should proceed without clear public awareness and demonstratable public consent and that the residents of Kent must be genuinely involved before any final submission is made to government?

Mr Whittle acknowledged that the level of public engagement to date had been exceptionally limited, partly due to the elections and the tight timeframe. He also noted that the government intended to carry out its own consultation after the 28 November deadline.

The Leader of Kent County Council acknowledged the need to do more to disseminate information and engage with the public, but also noted that the council had been in office for only two months and was still getting to grips with running the council. She also pointed out the difficulty of engaging the public at this stage, as there was no clear plan or options to present to them.

Councillor Mark Hood asked about the cost of carrying out a public consultation. Mrs Dixon-Sherrard provided estimated figures for different types of consultation, ranging from a relatively inexpensive online survey to a more costly representative sample survey with focus groups. The Leader of Kent County Council responded that the council had no spare money and that it was not even clear if Kent would end up with a mayor.

Financial Implications and Affordability

Several members raised concerns about the financial implications of the proposed changes, including the predicted costs for delivering the changes, how these costs would be funded, and whether there was a financial safety net in case of cost overruns.

Mr Whittle clarified that the £514,000 received from the government was specifically for developing the shared evidence base and business cases, not for funding actual transition costs. He stated that transition costs ranged from £23.2 million to £54.7 million, depending on the option, and that there was currently no expectation of government funding for these costs. Transition costs would therefore have to be met from council reserves. He also noted that in some cases, there was no net financial return to the future councils, only net increases in costs.

Councillor Harry Rayner raised concerns about the financial information being presented, noting that the Medway debt was unknown and that there were contingent liabilities involved in the safety valve liabilities and debt that were not included in the figures. He also questioned whether the government was likely to favour southern and south-eastern local authorities in the upcoming fair funding review.

Mr Shipton clarified that the figures presented were based on published accounts and did not include off-balance sheet debt. He added that he would check whether all Kent authorities had met the deadline for submitting their revenue outturn returns, which would provide more up-to-date information.

Disparities and the East Kent Authority

Several members, including Councillor Paul Chamberlain, expressed concern about the potential impact of the proposals on areas of deprivation, particularly in East Kent. They questioned how the government would ensure that these areas continued to receive adequate support under the new arrangements.

Mr Whittle explained that the government's assumption was that unitarization would allow councils to better focus on dealing with particular community challenges and service delivery in local areas. However, he acknowledged that there were significant disparities between different parts of Kent, particularly in the levels of deprivation found between the east and the west of the county. He noted that this could make it challenging to find a model for LGR that did not benefit one area over another.

Councillor Jamie Henderson asked for the officers' top five concerns. Mr Whittle responded that they were all based around the cross-cutting issues set out in the paper, including the disparities between different parts of the county, Kent's unique position as the major border with Europe, and the lack of a cross-county vehicle to think about how services might be designed.

Councillor Oliver Bradshaw raised concerns about infrastructure disparities between East and West Kent, and whether the proposals would exacerbate these differences. Mr Whittle acknowledged that there was a risk that some of those disparities could be hardwired in for a period, until a strategic vehicle was created or some sort of shared service arrangement could be developed.

A Hybrid Option

Councillor Christopher Hespe proposed a hybrid model, which he called Option 7, combining elements of Options 1 and 6. This would involve a single unitary authority operating through three divisions (East, West, North), with each division having a dedicated set of members with divisional and county-wide responsibilities. He argued that this model would offer the benefits of economies of scale, purchasing power, and influence, while also keeping the identity of Kent intact and allowing for streamlined decision-making and real devolution.

The Leader of Kent County Council expressed interest in exploring this option further. Mr Whittle agreed to go away and work up what Mr Hespe was suggesting, framing it as Option 6 with a design of governance to deal with some of the representational and delivery challenges.

Shadow Council Elections

Councillor Mike Soule asked for more information about the shadow council elections, including who would decide on the number of councillors in each unitary and when this would be known.

Mr Whittle responded that it was unclear, but that the boundaries of the wards would be determined during the transition arrangements and would be a matter of debate with MHCLG. He added that MHCLG had issued some further details on the process, and that structural change orders were expected to be issued in the autumn of 2026.

Benefits of Local Government Reorganisation and Devolution

Councillor Alister Brady asked the officers what they saw as the benefits of local government reorganisation and devolution.

Mr Whittle responded that the government's assumption was that unitarization would allow for better integration of services and stronger engagement with residents. He added that devolution could provide a range of powers and responsibilities, particularly in relation to economic development, spatial development strategy, and public service integration.

Amendments to the Recommendations

Councillor Harry Rayner proposed amendments to the recommendations, including the addition of a timetable for devolution and mayoral consideration, a timetable for consultation with the Kent electorate, and the invitation of town and parish councils to join an appropriate body at KCC.

Mr Watts advised that the purpose of the Cabinet Committee was to have a discussion, and that the comments and commentary could be noted as part of the minutes. He expressed concern about having a recommendation discussion that might take the rest of the day.

The Leader of Kent County Council offered a middle ground of holding an all-member briefing and inviting CALC to attend. Councillor Rayner accepted this offer and withdrew his amendment in connection with CALC.