The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met to discuss the ongoing collaborative work on local government reorganisation (LGR) across Kent and Medway, and to consider Kent County Council's (KCC) proposed position. The committee agreed to note the collaborative work to date and KCC's commitment to continued engagement, but did not support an amendment to oppose a single unitary authority for Kent and Medway. Members also discussed key financial statistics related to the reorganisation.

Local Government Reorganisation Collaboration

The committee reviewed collaborative efforts on LGR with the 14 local authorities in Kent and Medway. Tim Woolmer, Head of Strategic Partnerships, presented a report outlining the process for developing a shared evidence base and business cases, the timeline, and key milestones leading up to the 28 November 2025 submission date.

Mr. Woolmer noted that Kent and Medway is one of the only areas in the country managing to keep all councils together in a single process. He also noted that central government have mandated LGR for Kent and Medway, and have decided against prioritising the area for devolution¹.

Evidence Base and Transparency

Councillor Antony Hook raised concerns about transparency and public input, asking if the evidence base presented to Kent leaders on 3 September would be made available to the committee and the public. Mr. Woolmer responded that while the headlines had been made public, the detail had not, but he would take the request back to Kent Council leaders.

Contact with Other Counties

Councillor Antony Hook also asked about contact with colleagues outside of Kent, particularly in Surrey and Hampshire, who are further ahead in the LGR process. Mr. Woolmer confirmed that Kent County Council is working closely with partners around the country, bilaterally and through organisations such as the Local Government Association (LGA), the County Councils Network (CCN), and the Local Government Information Unit (LGIU).

Boundary Changes

Mr. Woolmer and David Whittle, Director for Strategy Policy Relationships & Corporate Assurance, clarified that while government guidance does not prohibit boundary changes to districts, there needs to be a clear rationale for any such changes.

Committee Oversight

Councillor Harry Rayner asked when the committee would have sight of the first draft of documentation. Mr. Woolmer stated that final drafts would be prepared by the end of October, allowing November for democratic processes in each council. Mrs Dixon-Sherrard confirmed that KCC's business case would be presented to the committee on 3 November.

Devolution

Councillor Harry Rayner raised the issue of the connection between devolution and LGR, and the fact that Kent and Medway were not selected for the devolution priority programme. Mr. Whittle clarified that there is no date or process set out by the government for further rounds of devolution for those councils not in the devolution priority programme. Councillor Rayner expressed concern that Kent is set to be the only county in the south-east without a mayor, and called for greater effort to press for devolution for Kent.

Public Consultation

Councillor Harry Rayner asked what efforts were being made to consult residents on the changes. Mr. Woolmer said that the emphasis was currently on awareness raising, with a collaborative piece led by Canterbury City Council. He added that there would be a formal consultation process once the government makes a formal decision.

Funding of Business Cases

Councillor Paul Stepto asked about the funding of the different business cases. Mr. Woolmer explained that there was a collective pot of funding from the government to support the work, but individual local authorities could also fund additional business cases separately. He confirmed that the joint piece of work is costing £185,030, and the KCC work is costing £25,950, with the majority of the work being done internally.

Voting Records

Councillor Jeremy Eustace asked which local authorities voted for the two options that were selected to progress to business case. Mr. Woolmer said he did not have the voting record to hand, but would advise him outside of the committee.

Judicial Reviews

Councillor Jeremy Eustace asked about the scope for judicial reviews and how they might impact the timeline. Benjamin Watts, General Counsel, explained the grounds for challenge under judicial review, and noted that the courts are reluctant to intervene in decisions made by ministers of state. Mr. Whittle added that there is a precedent for this in relation to Cumbria, where a judicial review did not change the government's timeline.

Ministerial Decision Timeline

Councillor Jeremy Eustace asked if there was a timeline for the minister to make a decision. Mr. Woolmer said that they had been indicated by the ministry that they should expect a decision by the summer, with an ambition to complete the process by April 2028.

Recommendations

The committee agreed to note the joint work to date, the ongoing collaboration, and the commitment to continue to engage with the committee on the collaborative process.

Kent County Council's Position on Local Government Reorganisation

The committee then discussed KCC's position on LGR and next steps. Mrs Dixon-Sherrard presented the report, outlining the administration's preferred option for a single unitary council with three area assemblies.

Public Consultation

Andrew Kennedy, speaking as a non-committee member, asked what public consultation had been undertaken to support the writing of the paper, and what further research would be done to ensure that the people of Kent have their views represented. Mr. Woolmer reiterated that the process at this stage was around awareness raising, and that formal consultation would begin once a decision was received from the minister.

Regional Assemblies

Councillor Claudine Russell asked how the defining of the three regional assemblies would fit in with the timeline, and what the work mapping and financial evidence basis would be. Mrs Dixon-Sherrard explained that the area assemblies would be committees of the unitary council, and that KPMG were being asked to include the estimated costs of running the area assemblies in their financial work.

Communication Plan

Councillor Maxine Fothergill raised concerns about the lack of a concrete communication plan for residents, and asked what specific time-bound plan was being ensured that the public are informed and engaged before the submission to government. Mr. Woolmer said that there was a joint comms campaign being led by Canterbury City Council on behalf of all 14 local authorities, with input from KCC officers. Councillor Fothergill suggested that KCC should be driving this, rather than Canterbury. Mr. Whittle added that the key consultation would be the one run by the government, and that Kent Council leaders would need to agree on an approach to promote that consultation.

Three-Assembly Model

Councillor Michael Brown challenged the assertion that the three-unitary authority was judged as the best to reflect local identity and provide a good basis for engaging with communities, and asked what further analysis had gone into the benefits of the three-assembly model versus three or four unitary authorities. Mrs Dixon-Sherrard said that this would be a large part of what was set out in the business case, and that they had used the evidence base developed for the initial options appraisal. She added that details of the structure of the regional assemblies would be presented to the committee at the next meeting.

Mega Council Concerns

Councillor Antony Hook expressed his view that the idea of one mega council for Kent was completely absurd and ought to be dropped. He raised concerns about over-centralisation, the risk of political bias, and the impact on devolution arrangements.

Cost Breakdown

Councillor Harry Rayner asked for a cost breakdown of the potential savings and additional costs outlined in the report, and what the cost of disaggregating the services currently in KCC and Medway would be. Mrs Dixon-Sherrard said that disaggregation costs were a critical part of the financial case being developed by KPMG for all five models.

Communications Responsibility

Councillor Harry Rayner also asked the administration to take back the communications responsibility from Canterbury City Council, describing it as perverse that a city council based in the east of Kent under a different political control was putting out communications for the whole of Kent. Mr. Woolmer clarified that Canterbury City Council was leading from a coalescing administrative perspective, but that KCC had a very big say in what the communication line was.

Amendment Proposal

Councillor Antony Hook proposed an amendment to oppose the proposal for a single unitary for Kent and Medway, but this was not supported by the committee.

Recommendations

The committee agreed to note KCC's position on the development of its business case, the commitment to continue to take part in the joint work, and the next steps to develop KCC's business case by the government deadline.

Key Financial Statistics

The committee discussed a report setting out key financial statistics across the 14 councils, including borrowing levels, council tax levels, and the geographic distribution of social care clients.

Debt Types

Councillor Claudine Russell asked for more finessing of the debt figures, to distinguish between different types of debt and how that debt was working for the authority. Mr. Shipton said that this was something they were working on with the district finance officers.

Financial Issues in North and East Kent

Councillor Harry Rayner raised concerns about significant financial issues in the north and east of Kent, and the potential for setting up an authority to fail if the minister goes for three or four unitaries. He also noted that the figures did not include off-balance sheet contingent liabilities for SEND funding. Mr. Shipton said that they were awaiting the announcement on the Fair Funding 2.0 consultation, which may result in some additional funding being distributed to the areas of greatest children's social care need.

Central Government Support

Councillor Wayne Chapman asked if there was any awareness of any powers support which should be given by central government to look after residents in these areas. Mr. Shipton responded that they were awaiting the announcement on the Fair Funding 2.0 consultation.

Debt Apportionment

Councillor Maxine Fothergill asked if work was being done to ensure that residents in some areas aren't left carrying disproportionate shares of the debt through higher council tax bills. Mr. Whittle said that the apportionment of debt and the determination of council tax levels was a matter for those new authorities, and that they would be speculating if they were doing that.

Assets

Councillor Antony Hook suggested that the debt data needed to be supplemented by data about assets, and that a future paper should look at the power of the different parts of the county to generate business rates. Mr. Shipton said that they would need to do some work on assets, and that he could certainly do an analysis of business rates.

Average Household Income

Councillor Oliver Bradshaw raised concerns about the lack of data on the average household income of the proposed areas, and how people were going to afford paying off these debts in areas where economic prosperity is significantly lower.

Transferring Assets and Liabilities

Councillor Jeremy Eustace asked what the actual cost of transferring assets and liabilities would come to against each of the proposed models. Mr. Shipton said that this would be covered as part of KPMG's assessment.

Pension Funds

Councillor Jeremy Eustace asked how pension funds across the whole of Kent would be brought into one, four, or three pots, and what that might cost. Mr. Shipton said that there was currently one pension fund administered by Kent County Council on behalf of all of the local authorities, and that the normal model would be for there to be one administering authority.

Council Tax Differences

Councillor Antony Hook noted that the differences in council tax were very small, and that the difference in council tax was about £80 a week, at most, from the average. Mr. Shipton confirmed that the table showed if they harmonised in one year what the rates would be for the new authority, and that the more authorities you have, the trend tends to be, the greater the difference is.

Referendum on LGR

Councillor Oliver Bradshaw asked if there was any allowance for a referendum by the Kent people to say yes or no to LGR. Mr. Watts said that the council could come up with a referendum, but that it would cost an awful lot of money, and that it would be entirely non-binding.

Recommendations

The committee agreed to note the key financial statistics.

Work Programme

The committee noted the work programme, with future meetings to be timetabled once more information about the LGR timescales is available.