URL: https://rutlandcounty.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1002

Decision Maker: Chief Executive

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose: Background Councils across England have been engaged in a process of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) since December 2024, following the publication of the English Devolution White Paper. The Government’s devolution agenda aims to create a new network of strategic authorities for the whole of England by 2029. LGR is required as a precursor to devolution in some areas – replacing two-tier county and district councils and small unitary authorities with much larger unitary councils, which can then be grouped to form strategic authorities with an Elected Mayor. Councils cannot opt out of this process, with national legislation being put in place to ensure progress. On 5th February 2025 the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution wrote to the Leaders of Rutland County Council, and the two-tier councils and unitary council in Leicestershire (LLR) formally inviting them to work together to develop a proposal for local government reorganisation for their area. Two unitary authorities, Rutland County Council and Leicester City Council, were included in the LLR invitation area, together with the two-tier authorities of Leicestershire County Council, Blaby District Council, Charnwood Borough Council, Harborough District Council, Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council, North West Leicestershire District Council, Oadby and Wigston Borough Council and Melton Borough Council. Following this process Rutland was included in three final proposals for local government reorganisation: a. “North, City, South” developed collaboratively by Rutland County Council and Leicestershire Districts and Boroughs. b. Leicester City Council’s proposal for two unitary authorities, one incorporating Rutland with Leicestershire and the other a City Council with an enlarged geographical footprint. c. Leicestershire County Council’s proposal for two unitary authorities, one incorporating Rutland with Leicestershire and the other a City Council with an unchanged geographical footprint. Cabinet Decision Cabinet on 21 November agreed the North-City-South proposal for Local Government Reorganisation most strongly met the statutory criteria and provided the best means of ensuring long-term financial sustainability and high quality, sustainable public services for Rutland. Cabinet also endorsed that proposal for submission to the Secretary of State and delegated authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to continue working with the Leicestershire District and Borough Councils, to agree and finalise the document and then submit the final proposal to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government prior to the 28 November 2025 deadline. Changes to Proposal following consideration by Scrutiny and Council meetings of Rutland County Council and the seven District/Borough Councils of Leicestershire Finance & Transition Concerns were raised about the pace of prevention savings, clarity on IT transition costs and disaggregation costs. The financial model was strengthened by updating assumptions including clearer IT transition costs, increased disaggregation estimates, and a phased approach to prevention investment supported by sensitivity analysis for risk management. Governance & Representation Questions were raised about ward sizes affecting community identity, councillor workload and allowances, parish council splits, and the need for strong accountability and scrutiny mechanisms post-transition. Governance improvements focused on making the proposal clearer and more locally responsive by rewriting the foreword to emphasize scrutiny’s role, clarifying democratic representation ratios, and adding detail on ward boundaries and neighbourhood hubs to strengthen community identity and accountability. Neighbourhood & Prevention Model Feedback questioned the evidence base and scalability of the prevention model, including it’s impact on adult and children’s social care. The proposal was strengthened by reinforcing the credibility of the prevention approach through additional evidence, real-world case studies, and a clearer rationale for neighbourhood partnerships to demonstrate scalability and community impact. Operational & Service Delivery Concerns focused on the complexity of aggregating and disaggregating services, risks in contract transition, unclear HQ locations, and IT systems harmonisation. The proposal was enhanced to provide greater clarity and assurance on implementation by expanding details on service aggregation and disaggregation, while strengthening the transition plan. Economic & Growth Issues included clarity on housing targets, infrastructure and highways delivery risks and the need to demonstrate economic distinctiveness and devolution benefits, including for the City. The proposal was strengthened by clarifying housing targets, improving transparency on population data sources, and reinforcing the case for economic distinctiveness and devolution benefits to demonstrate long-term growth potential. A summary of Leicester City’s prosperity without boundary changes through was also added. Cultural and Ceremonial County Status Ceremonial county status was underrepresented, and key references to tourism and cultural heritage were missing from the proposal. A new Section on tourism, heritage, and culture was added and we revised how Ceremonial County status was represented in the document to ensure visibility and alignment with expectations. Communications & Evidence Issues were raised about consultation responses, lack of clear graphics and case studies, evidence base for key assumptions, and transparency in comparing proposals. The proposal was strengthened by adding an executive summary and comprehensive appendices for criteria, financial analysis, case studies, Testimonials and Letters of Support. We also improved overall presentation through corrections and enhanced graphics for clarity.

Content:

Date of Decision: November 28, 2025