Strategic Options Appraisal: Reorganising Local Government in Buckinghamshire

Transcription

1 Strategic Options Appraisal: Reorganising Local Government in Buckinghamshire September 2016 Buckinghamshire Council Buckinghamshire Council 1

2 Contents Executive Summary 01 Key Findings 05 Context 13 Scope 15 Scope Considerations 17 Methodology 19 Background and Content 21 Does Population Size Matter? 29 Evaluation Criteria 33 Service Performance 36 Democratic Leadership and Accountability 50 Local Engagement and Decision Making 59 Sustainability 65 Approach to Accessing Options 76 Outcomes from the Assessment of Options 91 Conclusion 95 Appendix 1 - Summary of Key Findings by Evaluation Criteria 98

3 1 Executive Summary Introduction This document is a strategic options appraisal for future models of unitary local government within Buckinghamshire. It provides an estimate of financial costs and savings and considers the non-financial benefits and limitations of each option. This report was developed by the County Council and has been validated by an independent third party. This executive summary includes: Types of Reorganisation Structural options under consideration Summary findings from financial analysis Summary findings from non-financial analysis Conclusion Buckinghamshire is currently served by the County Council and Aylesbury Vale, Wycombe, Chiltern and South Buckinghamshire District Councils, as well as numerous further Town and Parish Councils. There is a consensus across all five principal local authorities within Buckinghamshire that the existing two-tier structure of local government is not best equipped to address the current and future needs of the area, and that reorganisation of public services is necessary to continue to deliver high-quality outcomes to residents and businesses. To date it has not been possible to achieve a consensus between the County Council and the District Councils on the preferred end state of any reorganisation. This document has been produced in order to inform and support the continuing debate on how to better serve the interests of Buckinghamshire residents and businesses through structural changes. It is intended for the use of all potentially affected stakeholders including the public, partners, Members and the relevant central government departments. The options explored in this report have been developed based on an analysis of the natural communities and economic geography that make up the county area as well as having regard to existing boundaries. We believe these options are therefore the most feasible for further consideration. Although Milton Keynes remains in the ceremonial county of Buckinghamshire, this community has not been considered as part of the options appraisal. Buckinghamshire Council 02

4 Types of reorganisation Authorities A Local Authority has responsibility for all council services delivered within a defined geographical area. The financial and nonfinancial benefits of the unitary model of local government are well established, and recent years have seen a number of areas transition from two-tier structures to various forms of unitary local government. As well as reducing costs, the removal of the two tier system can reduce duplication of some services, for example back office and support functions, whilst also bringing together services that are currently delivered by different tiers, but which target complementary outcomes for residents and communities, for example: The removal of separate tiers of local government removes any potential confusion over council responsibility for service quality and provides a single point of accountability for strategic decision making on behalf of the entire area. The unitary model also enables a more joined-up and strategic approach to critical issues relating to economic growth and infrastructure improvement. The last new unitary authorities were created in 2009: Bedfordshire County Council was abolished and two new unitary authorities were created Social care and housing Public health and leisure Waste collection and waste disposal Cheshire County was replaced by two new unitary authorities (East Cheshire and West Cheshire) Five other counties (Northumberland, Shropshire, Wiltshire, Cornwall and Durham) were replaced by single unitary authorities covering the previous county council areas. Further unitary moves were halted by the coalition government when it was formed in 2010, but have recently been reinvigorated by the Cities and Devolution Act Public debates about unitary structures of local government are currently taking place in many two tier areas across England. Combined Authorities Combined authorities are a relatively new form of local government structure, introduced by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and strengthened by the Cities and Devolution Act. To date there have been seven Combined Authorities formed in England. Combined authorities are created voluntarily and allow a group of authorities to take decisions on strategic issues they feel are better considered collectively. One of the key drivers for combined authorities is to collaborate across larger geographies to deliver services at greater scale. Existing combined authorities are primarily focused on economic growth, transport and regeneration although changes to legislation in the Cities and Devolution Act 2016 enabled them to perform any statutory function of the member local authorities. Combined authorities, as in Manchester, are generally built on a history of strong collaboration at a strategic level, which must be considered as part of a reorganisation in Buckinghamshire. It is important to note that there are currently no examples of combined authorities delivering social care and people related services successfully. In January 2015 the Communities and Local Government Select Committee commissioned an investigation entitled Devolution: the next five years and beyond which focused in particular on whether the Manchester model of devolution is suitable for other areas. The report suggested caution regarding the applicability of the Manchester model to other areas, given that it could not be easily lifted and dropped on to other city regions, where the physical and economic geography may differ and that the Government could not simply roll out the same model everywhere. It is important to recognise that all existing combined authorities have been implemented to aggregate and coordinate functions across metropolitan unitary authorities, rather than to manage the disaggregation of services from a predecessor County Council. 03 Buckinghamshire Council 04

5 2 1 Key findings Buckinghamshire is growing The profile of Buckinghamshire is set to change significantly over the next twenty years. Emerging local plans identify a need for 50,000 new homes by Population growth is an issue that must be considered for Buckinghamshire as a whole. When assessing the need for additional housing, we must also take into consideration: Demand for health and social care Planning, infrastructure and growth Leisure and the environment Managing this growth in a sustainable way whilst continuing to provide highquality outcomes is a key challenge for Buckinghamshire, especially as responsibility for relevant services is currently fragmented. The unitary model of local government brings the tools for managing growth into a single organisation and enables a strategic, joined-up approach. 2 Reducing funding and the need for financial efficiencies Collectively, the five councils have to deliver 30m savings over the next three years. Services provided by the public sector are increasingly unaffordable as our traditional delivery models are challenged by changes in public expectation and demand, particularly in the context of fiscal constraint. The move to a unitary model of local government creates an opportunity to identify and deliver financial and process efficiencies through service consolidation and transformation, for example by harmonising service standards at the level of current best performers. local authorities are arguably better able to act commercially and unlock innovation in service delivery. All models explored in this document offer opportunities for the improvement of local government. It is important that the strengths, skills and capacity of all organisations involved are protected and enhanced through any structural change. Buckinghamshire Council 06

6 3 Increasing demand for services Demand for the most cost-intensive public services is growing rapidly. The population over the age of 65 is increasing, as are levels of disability, leading to significant pressures on services and finances. For the purposes of this evaluation, the creation of either two or three new unitary authorities without a combined authority is being considered as a single option (option 2), as the non-financial implications are broadly similar in both cases. Our financial analysis differentiates between the likely costs and savings available under the variants of this option. Option three describes the creation of three new unitary authorities and a Combined Authority. For the purposes of this analysis we have assumed that the combined authority would take responsibility for delivery of social care and safeguarding services, including public health, as well as strategic planning and transport. These services have been selected over other choices due to the geography of Buckinghamshire and a clear separation of services and responsibilities based on current skills and expertise. Demand, particularly in adult and children s social care, is increasing, as is the intensity of need and the cost of packages of care for the most vulnerable residents. We recognise that no one council can meet these demands in isolation; new approaches are needed with our partners to find effective ways of protecting the vulnerable and embedding preventative strategies to keep residents healthy and prolong the need for costlier intervention. Population size Options under assessment The options selected for consideration are based on: The economic geography of the areas that make up Buckinghamshire Travel to work patterns The urban and rural nature of the county Population size The options under consideration are as follows: Throughout this year, guidance has been supplied by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to individual authorities that the optimum population size for reorganisation is in the range of 300,000 and 700,000 people and that although this range was not absolute, Ministers would ask Population options appraisal Option Boundary searching questions of proposals outside of this band. [1] The table below sets out the population sizes by geography in Buckinghamshire, the options and whether the broadly align with recommended criteria. Population 2015 Population and 3 County-wide Buckinghamshire unitary 528, ,925 Yes 2.1 North Buckinghamshire unitary 188, ,888 No South Buckinghamshire unitary 339, ,03 Yes Within recommended limits? Aylesbury Vale unitary 188, ,888 No 2.2 Wycombe unitary 176, ,388 No Chiltern & South Bucks unitary 163, ,649 No One A county-wide unitary responsible for delivering the full array of local authority services across Buckinghamshire Two/Three Would either see the county divided into North and South, or would follow a similar division to the current district boundaries Three with Combined Authority Three unitary authorities with strategic services pooled into a combined authority that would deliver these services county-wide. E.g. include health and social care and strategic planning and transport * Table shows population figures from 2015 ONS Mid Year Population Estimate A potential move to a two or three unitary option could include looking at different boundaries (rather than being based on existing District boundaries) for example by moving Princes Risborough into a North [1] M. Smulian, DCLG to Bidders: Aim for Minimum Population of 300,000, Local Government Chronicle (16 March 2016). Bucks unitary. However, there would be limited impact on population size and financial viability, and therefore the options appraisal is based on existing district boundaries. 07 Buckinghamshire Council 08

7 Financial analysis The financial analysis underpinning this report has considered the likely costs, savings, financial standing and risk, which are estimated to arise under each of the three options and have been scored on the basis of the following criteria: Return on Investment: based on the cost of transition, potential to generate savings and the pay-back period; Financial standing: based on risk, ongoing value for money (VFM) and financial sustainability for each option The table below ranks the options from 1 3, with 1 representing the highest level of savings and 3 being the lowest: Options Score Reasons Option 1: Single Authority 1 Greatest level of annual revenue savings ( 18.2m) for a similar total investment cost. Return on investment (ROI) is estimated at around 99% with an estimated overall 45.4m net saving over the five year period that is significantly higher than for the other options. Pay-back is estimated at 2.2 years following go-live. The level of savings potential would help to contribute significantly to the financial health and stability of the local government structure in the county. In conclusion, option one presents the greatest potential level of ongoing savings. These savings are a conservative estimate of what could be achievable through the consolidation of existing organisations. Once all services are brought together there will be additional savings opportunities that can be gained from economies of scale, adoption of best and optimum practices in service delivery, innovation and transformational investment. A single unitary authority would also be able to take a strategic approach to service delivery and investment across the whole of Buckinghamshire and in doing so, be better placed to manage any financial risks, as well as take full advantage of financial opportunities that may arise. Options two and three would offer less scope for consolidation and lower economies of scale. Cost and savings are anticipated to accrue across the unitary councils. Under a three unitary model (both with and without the Combined Authority) it is estimated that the South East would not be able to achieve payback of transition costs and council tax harmonisation within the five year period. The demand-led services of Adult and Children s Social Care represent by far the greatest service risk amongst any of the services currently undertaken by the districts and the county council. Disaggregation of these services would represent a significant financial risk. Under option three the ability of a combined authority to mitigate this potential risk is untested; furthermore the limited level of organisational consolidation within this option limits the level of savings potentially available. The modelling suggests that only the Single option would provide sufficiently significant net savings over the five year period to contribute to the significant financial risks within the current financial climate within local government. Option 2.1: Two Authorities Option 2.2: Three Authorities Option 3: Three Authorities + Combined Authority nd highest level of annual revenue savings ( 10.3m) for an investment of 16.1m; with ROI of 54% and a net saving of 17.3m over the five year period. However savings and the impact of council tax harmonisation are not expected to accrue evenly. As a result return on investment and pay-back is expected to be quicker in a North than in the South. In addition the level of savings within the five year period is not significant in the context of existing funding pressures within the local government structure. 3 This option scores the lowest with savings of 5.5m (from an investment 15.5m) resulting in 33% ROI. Pay-back for the smallest is anticipated to exceed the five year period with an overall net saving of 5.6m over the five year period across all three unitaries. This would not be sufficient to contribute significantly towards the existing funding pressures within the current structures. In addition risks around financial resilience are estimated to be greater including, for example the ability to manage high risk Social Care budgets. 3 Although the lowest level of savings ( 5.4m) for reasonable high investment cost 10.9m, the model suggests that a combined authority offers a higher potential return on investment (46%) and net cumulative savings of 11.1m than in the Three option. However as above, the level of savings is not significant in the current financial climate and pay-back for the smallest is anticipated to exceed the five year period. The Combined Authority would have a more significant budget in relation to the management of high risk services such as Social Care; however this would be subject to agreement between the contributing authorities. Excluding the Combined Authority elements of their budgets, the model suggests that the size of the Authorities would be significantly smaller than any existing comparable. Summary of non-financial analysis For our non-financial analysis, we have considered a wide range of criteria based on the evidential requirements of the Department for Communities and Local Government, and sought to learn from similar studies that have been undertaken Option Option One: Single Option Two: Multiple Option Three: Combined Authority Option Service Performance Democratic Leadership & Accountability Local engagement & decision making 1 - high scoring, 2- medium scoring, 3 - low scoring Economic Growth elsewhere within the country. The table below sets out the relative rankings that our appraisal has determined for these criteria, from 1-3 (1 being the highest). The sustainability section represents one rank overall and all criteria have been equally weighted: Skills & Capacity Sustainability Engagement of supply chain (business and supply chain) Coterminosity with partners (partnership working) Average sustainabilty score Total score Non- Financial Rank Buckinghamshire Council 10

8 On the balance of available evidence, our finding is that option one offers the greatest likelihood of better meeting the needs of Buckinghamshire in the future. A single unitary authority for Buckinghamshire would provide a single point of accountability and responsibility for the quality of all local authority services within the area, supported by a single executive function. This would greatly simplify arrangements from the perspectives of the public, partners and business, enabling quicker decisions taken with full democratic accountability and scrutiny. A single unitary would also improve the conditions for economic growth by bringing together related services such as spatial planning, housing, transport and infrastructure and allowing strategic decisions over the widest possible scale, working to a single plan. Sharing the same boundaries with partners would minimise the complexity of public sector working compared with the other options. This model would offer an enhancement of existing county-wide social care and safeguarding services through closer connection with related services such as housing, leisure and benefits and a greater ability to match resources with need than would be achievable under the other options. It also provides the most robust platform for further health and social care integration. The greater financial scale of a single unitary would also maximise the ability of the organisation to invest over the longer term in preventative services. The key challenge with this option would be to provide confidence to residents that a large single unitary council would be able to respond to distinctive local needs, respect local identity and put decision-making in the hands of local communities. Option Three was the second-highest ranking. A combined authority would offer the potential for joint decision-making on a county-wide basis by multiple new unitary authorities and could also allow some services, such as social care, to continue to be provided across Buckinghamshire without being disaggregated. However, the success of a combined authority would turn on its ability to make decisions quickly and effectively and to balance potentially conflicting interests to mutual benefit. The constitution and governance arrangements of a combined authority would be critical in order to achieve this. These issues would be particularly testing if, as proposed, the combined authority was required to make decisions on resource allocation for social care services as it is likely that the patterns of need and funding would not be equal across member authorities. At this point there are no precedents for a combined authority achieving this effectively; the model is untested. Finally, there would be important considerations around the democratic accountability of decisions taken by a combined authority, especially if it is decided that a directly-elected mayor is not an appropriate option for Buckinghamshire. Option two was consistently the lowest-ranked option. The main disadvantage of this option is the significant risk, complexity and cost likely to be associated with the disaggregation of social care and safeguarding services. It is well documented that existing smaller unitary authorities can struggle to bear the financial burden of these services especially when met with spikes in demand for high-cost placements. A key further drawback is the likely weakness in joint decision-making and leadership in the absence of a formal vehicle for achieving this. Inevitably, decisions on issues affecting all new unitary authorities will continue to be required, especially relating to the economy, infrastructure and transport. Without a wellgoverned combined authority, multiple unitary authorities in Buckinghamshire could struggle to avoid deadlock on big decisions that involved competing interests and may not be able to move at a pace expected by regional and national partners and stakeholders. Conclusion The preferred option reached by this appraisal is for a new single unitary authority for Buckinghamshire which delivers the greatest possible level of financial savings, reduces complexity and provides a single point of accountability to the public and partners. The one unitary model allows the new authority to be an active participant in wider public service reform within and beyond the county and provides the opportunity to design and implement at scale a comprehensive offer to communities and local councils. It is important to note that all unitary options under consideration would entail the dissolution of all existing councils, and the creation of new unitary authorities for which fresh electoral arrangements would be required. No existing organisation can therefore determine what new organisations could or should do. A new unitary authority or authorities, once established, would own and determine their own priorities. Buckinghamshire s future includes significant population growth and a change in its demographics; whilst maximising the benefits this offers, the local economy must continue to thrive and prosper through a period of uncertainty and opportunity, contributing to a positive and sustainable environment. Public service reform must be developed in a way which supports local needs in the wider national context, and at a time of exciting new possibilities through technology. Taking into consideration the financial and non-financial benefits, challenges and mitigating actions for each model, the finding of this options appraisal is that a new unitary council for Buckinghamshire offers the best solution to current and future challenges. 11 Buckinghamshire Council 12

9 3 This Context Buckinghamshire now has a choice. report sets out the strategic options appraisal for reorganising local government within the County of Buckinghamshire. This follows the Buckinghamshire Business First: Strategic Financial Case for Local Government Reorganisation in Buckinghamshire report, which sets out the case for change and the service and financial benefits of reorganising local government in Buckinghamshire. This options appraisal has been developed and published by the County Council, although it is important to emphasise some key messages from the outset: The remit of the strategic options appraisal is a balanced report that seeks to identify the optimum option for reorganising local government in Buckinghamshire. Data from district councils has been used where available; some was published and other data made available via a mutual sharing agreement. The report does not seek to design any new local government structure in detail. This will be explored in a separate business case. The content of any future devolution deal for Buckinghamshire, including additional funding, is not part of this appraisal. Given the complex nature of combined authorities in terms of separation of roles, responsibilities, services and governance, we have made assumptions related to the potential of this structure. Buckinghamshire Council 14

10 4 The options under consideration are as follows: The economic geography of the areas that make up Buckinghamshire Travel to work patterns Scope The urban and rural nature of the county Population size The options under consideration are as follows: One A county-wide unitary responsible for delivering the full array of local authority services across Buckinghamshire Two/Three Would either see the county divided into North and South, or would follow a similar division to the current district boundaries Three with Combined Authority Three unitary authorities with strategic services pooled into a combined authority that would deliver these services county-wide. E.g. include health and social care and strategic planning and transport For the purposes of this evaluation, the creation of either two or three new unitary authorities without a combined authority is being considered as a single option (option 2), as the non-financial implications are broadly similar in both cases. Our financial analysis differentiates between the costs and savings available under each of the variants of this option. Option three describes the creation of three new unitary authorities and a combined authority. For the purposes of this analysis we have assumed that the combined authority would take responsibility for delivery of social care and safeguarding services, including public health, as well as strategic planning and transport. These services have been selected over other choices due to the geography of Buckinghamshire and a clear separation of services and responsibilities based on current skills and expertise. Buckinghamshire Council 16

11 5 Scope considerations The status quo option has been not been fully appraised as part of this report, although will reference the status quo as a case for change. Ongoing and numerous attempts to collaborate across the county and districts have had limited success and have been largely unsuccessful at a strategic level. These attempts include the strategic partnership design; Pathfinder and more recently unsuccessful attempts for all parties to collaborate on a potential future model for local government in Buckinghamshire. An example of where all five councils have successfully collaborated at a strategic level is the New Deal for Buckinghamshire in 2008, along with the then Buckinghamshire Association of Town and Parish councils. The agreement set out the County and District Councils agreement with Town and Parish councils with regard to: How they will consult and engage with Town and Parish councils in service planning and delivery The services they are able to devolve How their services might be enhanced through Local Council contributions There have been some clear examples of good practice in collaborative and partnership working in Buckinghamshire. Notably Wycombe District Council and Chiltern and South Bucks District Councils have secured a number of joint services, including a shared Chief Executive (Chiltern and South Bucks) and combined back office systems and process to rationalise spend and deliver financial efficiencies, whilst maintaining high levels of performance and customer satisfaction. The preferred option, which will be explored within the separate business case, must take into consideration and learn lessons from good practice, structures, governance and partnership arrangements that already exist and are working well and present how these will be incorporated into any reorganisation of local government in Buckinghamshire. Against a challenging partnership landscape the County Council is seeking to establish which model of local government will best serve local residents, communities and businesses as well as catalysing future devolution discussions with central government. We have always been and remain committed to working with district council partners to achieve this and will continue attempts at reaching consensus. Buckinghamshire Council 18

12 6 Qualitative Methodology The work undertaken as part of this appraisal consisted of the following: and quantitative data and analysis Stakeholder engagement, consisting of, but not limited to: residents, partners, local and national businesses, supply chain and local authorities. These were conducted via face to face and telephone interviews, workshops and site visits Research and learning opportunities from previous cohorts of unitary authorities and recent sector developments Historical and current precedents, including current debates on devolution, local government modernisation and combined authorities Internal documents and information and also those provided by district councils alongside publically available performance and financial data Information produced by other local authorities who have become unitary or a combined authority which details news ways of working, governance arrangements, structures and financial efficiencies Plans and information available from public sector organisations, including central government, health and blue light services Reports from consultancy agencies, independent research, think tanks and academic publications Buckinghamshire Council 20

13 7 National Background & Context level context Following major reforms in 1972, numerous unitary authorities have been established in a number of areas throughout England. Since these reforms, 125 of 353 total local authorities in England have since become unitary authorities, removing some of the potential overlap which can occur in the twotier system. This attempt to streamline services by local authorities not only makes efficiencies within the back office support system, but can, for example, also reduce spend through economies of scale; creating a compelling offer to local authorities currently experiencing the impact of financial austerity. Moreover, and fundamental to the drive for unitary authorities, is the simplification of services for all stakeholders, including residents, businesses and elected members. In 1986, London moved to a broadly unitary style of government, following the abolition of the Greater London Council, although since 2000 the Greater London Authority has absorbed some functions from the boroughs such as major highways and planning policy. During the 1990s nine unitary authorities were created. Eight were amalgamations of two or more districts. It is important to note only Bedford Borough Council, which had an elected mayor, succeeded in becoming a unitary in its own right. During this period, 36 pre-existing Metropolitan Districts acquired responsibility for all services, thereby effectively becoming unitary authorities. In 2006, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) issued an Invitation to Councils in England, to submit bids for unitary status. In total, the government received 26 proposals for unitary authorities. The 2009 wave shows at that time consensus across all affected councils was not necessarily required. In Shropshire, for example, proposals for the eventually successful county-wide unitary were supported by the County Council and two districts, but opposed by the other three districts. In the March 2016 budget, George Osborne announced further devolution deals to create combined authorities and confirmed that new powers of criminal justice would be absorbed by Greater Manchester and that the Greater London Authority would shift towards full retention of its business rates. Undoubtedly, there is a continued drive nationally to integrate and organise public services in a way that is sustainable, financially viable and makes sense to the public, elected members and central government. There is a significant focus on collaboration between existing organisations and sectors, with service integration acting as a fundamental aspect of the Government s public sector reform agenda. This includes the absorption of Public Health to local authorities, the significant shift towards health and social care integration and wider strategic partnerships in transport, highways, housing and infrastructure. Buckinghamshire Council 22

14 Local level context Throughout Buckinghamshire, there are several local characteristics which will likely impact on a reorganisation of local government. Firstly, the county is subject to similar financial reductions as other local authorities throughout the country, creating a period of time where services are transforming in order to be able to meet the needs of residents. Many county councils, including Buckinghamshire, have had steeper funding reductions than district councils to date, leading to a perceived mismatch in capacity and financial resilience. Buckinghamshire County Council has modernised its services through some devolution of roles and responsibilities in an attempt to increase opportunities for local leadership and improve the relationship of the County and town and parish councils. These relationships are crucial to an improved reorganisation of the current local government model. As a county, Buckinghamshire has historical experience of local government reorganisation following the creation of Milton Keynes as a unitary authority in Throughout the mid- 1990s, the Local Government Commission for England recommended the option of replacing the six previous councils with three unitary authorities, based on the geographies of Milton Keynes, Aylesbury Vale and the combined districts of Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe. In September 2014, Buckinghamshire Business First commissioned EY to produce The Strategic Financial Case for Local Government Reorganisation in Buckinghamshire [1]. This study suggested that, over a five year period, there was an opportunity for net savings of between 13.4 million and 26.9 million from a two unitary model, and between 44.6 million and 58.3 million in a single unitary model for Buckinghamshire. Subsequently, Aylesbury Vale District Council published a study of the financial opportunities arising from a two unitary council model for Buckinghamshire. Whilst this proposal demonstrated some of the potential financial benefits for Aylesbury Vale, it is proposed that a study needed to be undertaken which produces a solution which meets the needs of the County as a whole. This strategic options appraisal is the County Council s bid to produce a balanced appraisal of the options that will benefit Buckinghamshire in its entirety; taking into consideration the needs of all stakeholders. Buckinghamshire has a population of circa. 528,300 residents (excluding Milton Keynes) and is a county of contrast, with rural and urban areas. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections show that the population is expected to grow by over 60,000 people between now and However this projection does not take into account recently emerging local plans which suggest that approximately 50,000 new homes will be built over the next years. If we assume there are 2.4 people living in each household, this would result in a total population increase of 120,000 people by Aylesbury in the north and High Wycombe in the south are the largest towns of in Buckinghamshire; most other principal locations are the five market towns of Buckingham, Winslow, Chesham, Amersham and Princes Risborough. The rural nature of much of the county presents a number of challenges including constraints on land development and access to services and facilities. We are also seeing changes to the population which are set to continue, with a larger population growth in the north as a result of significant housing growth and an ageing population generally across the county. Buckinghamshire is also expecting a 62% rise in BME communities ( ), predominantly in Aylesbury and Wycombe, therefore a focus on community cohesion is crucial to any proposal. The 2015 Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) highlighted isolated pockets of deprivation. These were restricted to areas in High Wycombe, Aylesbury and Chesham. However, Acorn (the residential neighbourhood classification from CACI) analysis at postcode level reveals that nearly one in five people (18% of the population) are classed as hard pressed or moderate means. Only half of those live in Aylesbury and High Wycombe with over one third located in market towns, showing that differences in the socio-economic make-up of the population are much more widespread (projection) Aylesbury Vale 188, ,888 Chiltern 94, ,518 South Bucks 69,100 79,131 Wycombe 176, ,388 TOTALS 528, ,925 Population Density Persons per hectare Bucks Districts Bucks Wards This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Copyright Buckinghamshire County Council Licence No Imagery GeoPerspectives.com Buckinghamshire Population density 2011 Census ± Produced by the Research Team November 2012 Scale: 1:274, Kilometers at A4 [1] Buckinghamshire Business First: Strategic Financial Case for Local Government Reorganisation in Buckinghamshire (EY) 23 Any attempt to reorganise local government in Buckinghamshire must be sensitive to the demographic and geographic nature of Buckinghamshire. Buckinghamshire Council 24

15 Authorities The Debate Continues A Local Authority has responsibility for all council services delivered within a defined geographical area. The financial and nonfinancial benefits of the unitary model of local government are well established, and recent years have seen a number of areas transition from two-tier structures to various forms of unitary local government. A unitary authority removes the upper and lower tier system of local government to establish a principal tier responsible for all local authority services, and in some cases have additional responsibility for issues that would otherwise fall under the remit of central government. In addition to reducing costs, the removal of the two tier system can reduce duplication of services. Bringing the tiers together removes confusion over responsibilities and simplifies strategic service decision making on behalf of the entire area. This enables a more strategic approach to planning and economic development, a comprehensive approach to housing, leisure and public health and joined up waste collection and management. The last new unitary authorities were created in 2009 as follows: Bedfordshire County Council was abolished and two new unitary authorities were created Cheshire County was replaced by two new unitary authorities (East Cheshire and West Cheshire) Five other counties (Northumberland, Shropshire, Wiltshire, Cornwall and Durham) were replaced by single unitary authorities were created to cover the previous county council areas. There are some concerns about whether smaller unitary authorities are able to sustain quality service delivery whilst significantly reducing costs in a sustainable way that is future proof. The 2011 Deloitte report Sizing Up concluded that the creation of unitaries can deliver sustained financial benefits. The report demonstrates that between 2008/09 (pre-merger) and 2009/10 (postmerger), the reformed authorities reduced their expenditure by 13.4%, compared to an increase in expenditure of 2.1% in the remaining English local authorities. In Wiltshire, where the county council and four districts merged into one unitary, back office spend has reduced from 19% to 9% of the authority s budget, and transitional costs of 18m have been far exceeded by total savings of 68m during the first term of the new authority ( ). Further research into the financial position of unitary authorities published by the New Local Government Network (NLGN) (2014) As Tiers Go By, concluded that a restructure of all remaining two tier areas as county unitaries would save between 680m m. Notwithstanding the obvious financial benefits, there are some claims that certain short-term drawbacks in relation to quality of service delivery may exist. Although this may be true in some cases, evidence gathered from Wiltshire has demonstrated that it is possible to deliver savings and maintain service quality: all performance indicators throughout their short-term transition to unitary were maintained or improved. Wiltshire also used the opportunity of being a county-wide unitary (excluding Swindon) to innovate when it comes to increasing local engagement and increasing the involvement of parish and town councils. They have achieved this through the creation of 18 Area Boards, which are attended by councillors, local NHS and police representatives and town and parish councillors. These boards are responsible for their own budget to support local projects, and together account for approximately 1.7m funding per annum. There are examples of some of the 2009 unitary authorities feeling unsatisfied with the scale offered by resulting structures and which are calling for further reform. In September 2014 the Leader of Cheshire East Council called for it to be reunited with Cheshire West and Chester Council, arguing that the county was made weaker by becoming two separate unitaries in In Shropshire there have been calls by local MPs to combine the unitary of Shropshire Council (2009 wave) with Telford & Wrekin Council (1990s wave), in order to achieve savings. The evidence to support the financial case for unitary authorities is strong. It appears through Lord Heseltine s 2012 No Stone Unturned In pursuit of Growth that there is a strong case for local government reorganisation. In this report Lord Heseltine commented of the 353 principal authorities in England that the number of different councils doing similar things remains costly and confusing. 25 Buckinghamshire Council 26

16 Combined Authorities Combined authorities are a relatively new form of local government structure, introduced by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and strengthened by the Cities and Devolution Act. To date there have been seven combined authorities formed in England, which have all been designed to aggregate functions across metropolitan unitary authorities, rather than to manage the disaggregation of services from a predecessor authority. The inaugural combined authority devolution agreement was with Greater Manchester in This has been followed by: Cornwall West Yorkshire Liverpool West Midlands North East Tees Valley Sheffield City region Multiple tier authorities The confusion of multiple tier authorities to residents is well documented at a national level, but has also been proven by the independent IPSOS MORI study commissioned by the County Council and carried out in Buckinghamshire. Residents articulated challenges when contacting local government in Buckinghamshire. Residents dislike the separation of services between tiers of local government and report the following issues when contacting multiple tiers of organisation, including: Reporting a pothole Enquiring about waste management and collection Reporting an issue on a road or pathway Street cleaning Grass cutting Mortuary services and registration services (births, deaths and marriages) Many combined authorities are focused on economic growth, transport and regeneration although changes to legislation in the Cities and Devolution Act 2015 enabled them to perform any statutory function of the member local authorities. It is important to note that there are currently no examples of such authorities delivering social care and people related services successfully. An attempt to create a combined authority with little evidence of historical or existing collaboration would be untried and untested. In January 2015 the Communities and Local Government Select Committee commissioned an investigation Devolution: the next five years and beyond which focused in particular on whether the Manchester model of devolution is suitable for other areas. The report highlighted caution regarding the applicability of the Manchester model to other areas, that it could not be easily lifted and dropped on to other city regions, where the physical and economic geography may differ and that the Government could not simply roll out the same model everywhere. It also highlighted the attitudes of authorities towards the idea of an elected mayor with many feeling that it was a trade off in return for more powers. In relation to how this may work in practice, the creation of small unitary councils could focus on place based services. The combined authority may be accountable for governance arrangements that allow the unitary authorities to work together in delivering those services that need scale (eg people services), as well as collaborating over the major strategic issues such as economic growth and transportation. The combined authority would be a legal body in its own right; it would employ staff; or could include a model of a lead authority acting on behalf of others, for example in commissioning services. The detailed issues of leadership in a combined authority would be a priority, including whether the appointment of a mayor would be best. Moreover, the extent to which policies would need to be aligned, risk and reward sharing and pooling budgets would be a primary focus for strategy and leadership. 27 Buckinghamshire Council 28

17 8 Does population size matter? Throughout the last few decades, local authorities seeking to reform have questioned what population size is optimum for reorganisation, considering which is neither too small to miss economies of scale or strategic opportunities, nor too large to lose local context in decision-making. A key factor for consideration is tax base; given that an everincreasing proportion of local authority funding is drawn from local taxation and growth rather than the revenue support grant, an authority needs to be big enough to generate sufficient funding to maintain financial resilience and run viable services. Throughout this year, some guidance has been supplied by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to individual authorities on what they believe the ideal population size for authorities is. In Dorset County Council, their CEO Debbie Ward has confirmed central government advised her organisation to create a unitary of between 300,000 and 700,000 people, and that although this range was not absolute ministers would ask searching questions of proposals outside of this band. 1 Whilst there are no official government publications which refer to these amounts as the recommended boundaries for an authority, it has regularly been referred to by other authorities in their unitary bids. 2 These margins are likely based on the experience of other authorities which have become unitaries during the previous cohorts of local government reform. During the 1990s, the average population of those becoming unitary authorities was 177,733, whilst the average size of the 2009 group was 367,967 and included three of the ten largest unitary councils by population, Wiltshire, Cornwall and Durham. 3 This has led to the conclusion that larger councils are better-placed to deliver economies of scale, and more able to devote a proportion of their resources to the frontline; whereas even the best performing small unitary councils struggle to marshal the capacity to, for example, participate in devolution opportunities. 4 An example of issues faced by some smaller unitary issues is evidenced in Berkshire, where there are multiple unitary authorities. This means that Thames Valley Police must liaise with several multi-agency safeguarding hubs (MASH) and safeguarding boards. This has been documented as a perceived increase in bureaucracy and time in liaising with various partners. Furthermore, a research paper conducted by Cardiff University, and published by the DCLG, created the more comprehensive evaluation of the impact of size on local authority performance that has ever been conducted. 5 The paper concluded that: The relationship between population and performance is a complex mosaic, which means that proposals for reorganisation in each local area need to be considered separately, with particular attention to the size of the existing and new authorities Nevertheless, the balance of the evidence suggests that performance tends to be better in large [rather] than small authorities 6 The research also found twice as many linear positive as linear negative effects, meaning that an increase in population size for a unitary authority positively impacted twice as many services as were negatively impacted. 7 1 M. Smulian, DCLG to Bidders: Aim for Minimum Population of 300,000, Local Government Chronicle (16 March 2016). 2 Grant Thornton, Review of Future Options for Local Government in Oxfordshire Interim Report (15 July 2016), p.15 3 Shared Intelligence, Learning the Lessons from Local Government Reorganisation: An Independent Study (2015), pp Ibid., p.3 5 Department for Communities and Local Government, Population Size and Local Authority Performance (October 2006), p.6. 6 Ibid., p.5. 7 Ibid., p.31. Buckinghamshire Council 30

18 The table below sets out the population sizes by geography in Buckinghamshire, the options and whether the broadly align with recommended criteria. Population options appraisal Option Boundary * Table shows population figures from 2015 ONS Mid Year Population Estimate A potential move to a two or three unitary option could include looking at different boundaries (rather than being based on existing District boundaries) for example by moving Princes Risborough into a North Bucks unitary. However, there would be limited impact on population size and financial viability, and therefore the options appraisal is based on existing district boundaries. It is worth noting that any set of proposals that included a change to existing boundaries (ie beyond a simple merger) would likely have to go through the Boundary Commission rather than the fast track s15 Cities and Devolution Act route and could therefore slow things down considerably, and possibly also require a higher evidential standard. Population 2015 Population County-wide Buckinghamshire unitary 528, ,925 Yes North Buckinghamshire unitary 188, ,888 No South Buckinghamshire unitary 339, ,03 Yes Aylesbury Vale unitary 188, ,888 No Wycombe unitary 176, ,388 No Chiltern & South Bucks unitary 163, ,649 No Within recommended limits? Opening summary The case for reorganising local government has been evident since the initial 1972 reorganisation to establish a number of unitary authorities. In Buckinghamshire, the case for change was supported by the Buckinghamshire Business First: Strategic Financial Case for Local Government Reorganisation in Buckinghamshire by EY (2014) where significant financial, structural and service improvement efficiencies were identified by reorganising the county of Buckinghamshire. Indeed, there is consensus across the five councils that a reorganisation of local government in Buckinghamshire is required in order to meet the current and future demands placed on local services, and respond to the government agenda of continued integration and partnership working. Therefore, the only question remains: which form of reorganisation is best suited to Buckinghamshire stakeholders? The current multiple tier model is acting as a constraint on Buckinghamshire collectively fulfilling its potential through fragmentation of accountability. The unitary model is likely to provide the greatest assurances to central government; it is tried and tested with the benefits and challenges transparently recorded with opportunities to learn from past lessons. An alternative approach to a model of local government is the relatively new approach of a combined authority. This allows for flexibility in which services are delivered at a combined authority level or a unitary level, although could be perceived as recreating a two tier system of local government in Buckinghamshire. Moreover, the assumption that Health and Social Care would be integrated into this potential proposal leaves the risk and underlying question of developing a provision in a combined authority for people related services that are untried and untested. 31 Buckinghamshire Council 32

19 9 This section of the options appraisal will explore each of the five evaluation criteria in detail and will consider: Evaluation criteria Short description of how each option would be likely to work based on available precedents including status quo Benefits and challenges table for each option Conclusion and scoring Overall summary evaluation with scoring at the end Buckinghamshire Council 34

20 10Service Performance Residents have clearly expressed the view that the quality of services must be protected and enhanced through any reorganisation of local government in Buckinghamshire, particularly in relation to protecting and safeguarding vulnerable children and adults. For the purposes of this appraisal service performance is defined as: Achieving and delivering the best possible service to residents, service users and customers in the now, whilst continually developing innovative approaches to improve, particularly with regards to service standards and value for money for the future There is a general consensus across residents, business and partners that a two-tier arrangement for local government is not best placed to deliver against the current and future needs of Buckinghamshire. The level of need for infrastructure and services across Buckinghamshire is set to increase significantly as a result of the planned levels of growth already identified through the preparation of the Local Plans. In the face of this scale of growth, it is clear that the current business model for service delivery is unsustainable: the potential achievable efficiencies with the current service delivery model will not be sufficient. Evidence shows that the public are often not clear about who delivers the services they use every day. The resident tracker survey by IPSOS MORI in 2014 told us that customers do not understand which tier of local government provides services; 78% of customers believe the County Council is responsible for bin collection, which leads to ongoing failure demand for customer contact. Residents have told us this confusion creates a perception of poor customer service and experience. Local evidence of the challenges within two tier or multiple tier models are well documented and further supported by national research which suggests many upper tier authorities are struggling to meet the increasing demands and financial responsibility of social care, whilst district authorities would like to collaborate more on housing and health priorities. A future collaborative approach to health and leisure, social care, revenue and benefits, and economic growth and business rates is crucial for future service performance and better service outcomes for customers. The organisational structure of services is key to any local government redesign. It is important to note that the following roles are statutory: Director of Public Health (DPH) Director of Children s Services (DCS) Director of Adult Social Services (DAS) This has the potential to create additional financial pressures on multiple unitaries; however this may be mitigated by appointing a joint Director of Public Health and a joint DCS and DAS across a multiple unitary model. The quality of services and outcomes, especially for the most vulnerable, should be the primary consideration that drives decision-making around any changes to local government structures. In this section of the appraisal we consider a selection of services currently delivered by the County Council with the aim of understanding baseline service performance, identifying the alternative delivery models under consideration, and evaluating the strength of evidence that these would lead to improved outcomes. Buckinghamshire Council 36

21 Adults Social Care Services In 2014/15 the County Council s adult social care services achieved above average scores in 12 out of 21 measures of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework (ASCOF). There are three standout areas where the council are particularly exceeding national averages. (i) The proportion of adults receiving self-directed support, (ii) the proportion of adults in contact with secondary mental health services who are in paid employment and (iii) the proportion of adults in contact with secondary mental health services who live independently with or without support. This demonstrates that adult social care services within the county have successfully made those in need aware of what support is available to them, as well as delivering a high-standard of support when called upon, as a large number of clients feel empowered to continue with employment and/or live independently. Adult Social Care Services Option One: Option Collaborative working and co-commissioning with health is relatively well established with the use of pooled budgets and joint commissioning arrangements in place for a number of services. Local challenges include the recruitment and retention of social workers, increasing demand for complex packages of care and increasing costs for delivery of services in rural parts of the county, for example domiciliary care. Adult social care services are starting from a strong position under current structures. There is an emerging case for how services could be further improved through unitary local government due to a closer connection between adult social care services and services currently delivered elsewhere. For example, an ability to influence the supply of housing suitable for the elderly and to sit alongside benefits and welfare services, where appropriate, sharing data to improve prevention and interventions. In any unitary authority it is likely that benefits would arise from a closer connection between adult social care services and services currently delivered elsewhere for example one outcome would be an ability to influence the supply of housing suitable for the elderly and to sit alongside benefits and welfare services, where appropriate sharing data to improve prevention and interventions. There would be additional clear benefits to being able to do this at scale within a single unitary. In relation to safeguarding our vulnerable residents, scale is important, both in terms of economies of scale in commissioning, but also the delivery of supporting performance statistics and business intelligence analysis. In a unitary model, this would enable a louder voice in negotiating with health partners, and the CCG s both locally and nationally. The ability to commission or procure services in a more commercially minded way is necessary to consistently achieve outcomes for residents and provide services in a cost effective way. Combining the budget of all five councils creates greater purchasing power, leverage and the ability to prioritise spending to achieve outcomes. Adult Social Care Services Option Two: Multiple There are challenges related to all models of local government reorganisation, although potentially more prevalent in a multiple unitary model, including securing and delivering adequate and sufficient domiciliary care to vulnerable residents in the rural north of the county. This is a national issue in more rural counties and must be considered as a potential risk to service performance. However, this and other risks may be mitigated in a variety of ways including: New unitary authorities with pooled budgets: This may involve a distribution of service responsibility to a single unitary on behalf of all unitaries in the county. This would be a collaborative approach to service delivery by pooling budgets. The structural issues may be mitigated by joint commissioning with the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) via a shared statutory Director of Adult Social Care. However, robust conversations would need to take place around resource allocation, cross-subsidisation across unitaries and exit strategies should one of the unitaries decide to withdraw in the future. Full integration of health and social care with commissioning led by the CCG: This would involve full integration of adult social care and relevant CCG budgets with a retained statutory responsibility for local government at combined authority level or within individual unitary councils. However, the delivery of separate social care services within each unitary is not a desirable option as it would likely increase the cost and complexity of services. Smaller budgets are less likely to be viable as smaller unitary authorities will be unlikely to have sufficient scale to successfully maintain financial resilience if faced with a spike in demand for high-cost services. Safeguarding arrangements will also be less robust; multiple services could lead to increases in risk to service users due, for example, to the difficulties in sharing data across organisations. Liaison and commissioning may also be complicated for key partners such as NHS, police and providers. To help to mitigate these risks, key service areas such as adult social care could be led by one of the multiple unitaries on the basis of a single budget and a single point of accountability or each could commission services jointly with one or more other authority. However as explained previously, agreements would need to be reached regarding resource allocation which may be more difficult without a combined authority. A larger organisation can also be more strategic and responsive in redirecting resources to need, for example in the case of a civil emergency (e.g. flooding) or in response to safeguarding / social care issues. 37 Buckinghamshire Council 38

22 Public Health Adult Social Care Services Option Three: Three with Combined Authority A combined authority could potentially provide a platform for delivery of adult social care services and further integration with health over a countywide area, avoiding the additional cost and complexity created by disaggregating the service under option 2. For example - a combined authority could feasibly deliver a single statutory service on behalf of member unitary authorities, or it could provide coordination of pooled budgets with full statutory responsibility and accountability retained by individual unitary authorities. Buckinghamshire is relatively affluent and has seen its Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) rank improve from the 8th least deprived local authority in England in 2010 to the 5th least deprived in 2015, but this affluence disguises pockets of deprivation. Life expectancy in Buckinghamshire is significantly greater than both the England and South East averages at 81 years for males and 85 years for females. However, while life expectancy continues to improve, disability free life expectancy is static, meaning that the extra years of life are not lived in good health. Although Buckinghamshire is generally affluent and this is reflected in above national average health outcomes, local challenges include: However it is important to note that no precedent exists for a combined authority delivering adult social care services inherited from a predecessor County Council and on behalf of multiple new organisations, so this model would be a step into the unknown. It would be likely to entail a lengthy and disruptive process of implementation, learning and optimisation during which there is no guarantee that service quality could be maintained. 2 in 3 adults are overweight or obese 1 in 7 adults smoke, compared with 1 in 4 adults in manual groups smoke Adult Social Care Summary Delivery of adult social care services via a combined authority would also require an effective means of ensuring that resource allocation was directed towards need, which is unlikely to be evenly distributed across member unitary authorities. Very robust governance arrangements, including appropriate arrangements for scrutiny and democratic engagement, would be required in order to resolve conflicting demands on resources in order for this to work. 1 in 5 1 in 3 adults are physically inactive adults are at risk of developing diabetes 1 in 5 adults drink harmful levels of alcohol The opportunity for the continued service performance of safeguarding services in a Combined Authority is a potential benefit of this model of reorganisation, although much work would be required to establish this in practice. Social Care and Public Health services are already delivered by the County Council; transferring these services to a Combined Authority would present a lower risk of disruption to service performance than full disaggregation of the service across multiple new organisations. A single unitary Council for Buckinghamshire could continue to deliver adult social care services across the county area and would therefore avoid the risks attached to disaggregation. The service would benefit from a closer connection to related areas such as housing and benefits administration. Any decisions taken about resource allocation would be subject to the full democratic engagement and scrutiny arrangements for a single organisation. Public Health Option One: Option The size of the authority with this model is thought to benefit outcomes for residents, as with scale comes (i) power to negotiate with partners such as health; (ii) more effective commissioning arrangements based on greater financial capacity and (iii) greater quality and validity of data, which again leads to better, more tailored outcomes for residents. Scale also brings greater purchasing power and leverage as budgets are pooled and offers a more strategic and comprehensive response to emergency situations. The benefits of this option outlined for adult social care are also applicable for public health where closer connections can be made with services currently delivered elsewhere. For example, in relation to safeguarding our vulnerable residents, benefits could be seen both in terms of economies of scale in commissioning, but also the delivery of supporting performance statistics and business intelligence analysis. 39 Buckinghamshire Council 40

23 Public Health Option Two: Multiple Option Three: Three with Combined Authority Public Health Summary If the delivery of public health was fragmented across a multiple unitary authorities or achieved via a combined authority, there would need to be robust governance arrangements to balance competing interests and claims on funding. Where risks exist to service delivery within this model, one can look to full integration of services (i.e health and social care), pooling budgets and joint service delivery and commissioning across authorities or external bodies in order to mitigate. By sharing statutory posts (such as in adult social care), financial pressures for duplicated roles could also be reduced. However, as with social care, the delivery of separate public health services within each unitary is not a desirable option as it would likely increase the cost and complexity of services. The risk to service performance of transitioning services like social care and public health to a combined authority is less than for option two as the county council currently delivers this across the whole of Buckinghamshire. However, a challenge for this model relates to an example where public health is delivered by the Combined Authority; if leisure services are delivered more locally by unitary authorities and green spaces or community programmes run by local councils, residents of Buckinghamshire will still be in conversation with three authorities who are attempting to reach similar outcomes and wider determinants of health. There are clear benefits to a unitary authority for public health services, in particular the opportunity to influence and embed public health outcomes within those services that most immediately determine health outcomes such as housing, leisure and environmental health. This could also be achieved in a multi unitary model albeit within smaller areas and robust governance arrangements would be required over any joint commissioning arrangements between new unitary authorities. The disaggregation of public health and social care services across Buckinghamshire is not desirable financially or in terms of safeguarding the vulnerable. Children, Families and Education In 2014, Buckinghamshire County Council was rated as inadequate under the Ofsted inspection of children in need of help and protection, children looked after and care leavers. In 2016, the independent Chair of the Improvement Board confirmed that there had been improvement since the 2014 inspection and progress has accelerated in the last six months. Following the widely reported instances of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in Buckinghamshire, leading to the convictions of six men in 2015, we now have a multi-agency team (the Swan Children, Families and Education Option One: Option Unit) focussed on supporting children at risk of and subject to CSE. Within schools, Buckinghamshire performs at or above the national average at all key stages. There are a higher proportion of schools rated as good or outstanding by Ofsted in Buckinghamshire than nationally. Local challenges include the ongoing work to improve children s safeguarding and therefore the Ofsted rating, recruitment and retention of social workers, high-cost out of county placements and increasing assessments and demand for Special Educational Needs (SEN). A larger and more strategic organisation is better able to take a longer-term and more flexible view about investing in prevention, and also has the benefit of combining customer data sets to gain a greater understanding of the residents and potential to tailor services. The use of joined-up data about households to achieve predictive insights is crucial to ongoing and future service performance. The ability to overlay Joint Strategic Needs Assessment data with council tax data and benefits data to implement a service that not only protects and supports the most vulnerable residents, but delivers a service that can implement preventative strategies to reduce future service need. These preventative early interactions with residents may delay more intensive public services and highlight trends which could later require more dependency on services. For example, through working with partners, a case of domestic child abuse that is found through the police could similarly be identified at a children s centre, activating the necessary level of social care to reduce the likelihood of the problem worsening, but crucially at an earlier stage than is currently possible. In this example, if the situation were to escalate, a unification of our services would allow social care to coordinate needs for the individuals, from housing and fostering through to special education needs, effectively safeguarding the child and family. 41 Buckinghamshire Council 42

24 Children, Families and Education Option Two: Multiple Option Three: Three with Combined Authority Children, Families and Education Summary It is envisaged that a multi unitary model could achieve a number of benefits. It allows for a diversification of priorities and local-based commissioning enabling each region of Buckinghamshire to focus on its strengths and concentrate delivery of services on local interests. It would reflect and recognise district urban and rural issues and different demographic and socio-economic characteristics, delivering the outcomes required by the population served. A county unitary could also achieve this but only through putting in place strong locality working arrangements. There are also complexities with this model. A lesson learnt from Berkshire, a County area consisting of multiple unitary authorities with separate safeguarding arrangements, is that data sharing and effective liaison between partners is felt to be difficult and time consuming. A similar arrangement in Buckinghamshire could put some of our most vulnerable at risk. As with adult social care services, a combined authority could feasibly continue to deliver children s social care services across the County area, but this model would raise the same issues around the flexibility to direct resources to the greatest need and the democratic accountability of the service. Protecting vulnerable children must remain the overriding priority, but alongside those that need intensive support is a need to focus on those on the edge of care to help prevent more children from requiring intensive support through early identification and action. The ambition is to progressively reduce the number of children needing intensive support through earlier identification and action, while improving the outcomes for any children that do come into care. A combined authority model could deliver both a strategic vision and local agenda for the county through the development of a strategic plan and several localised plans. This could offer cross cutting services such as children s safeguarding, the benefit of having jointly commissioned and integrated services whilst responding to more tailored, local needs where required. Due to the current Ofsted position and the work currently being undertaken to improve outcomes in this area, disaggregation of the existing service would risk disrupting the recovery and improvement of the services. The benefits of service delivery over the county footprint should be protected. A single unitary for Buckinghamshire could achieve this with the minimum of potential disruption and risk. Transport, Economy & Environment The level of need for infrastructure and services across Buckinghamshire is set to increase significantly as a result of the planned levels of growth already identified through the preparation of the Local Plans. The scale of growth planned across Buckinghamshire is not evenly spread, making it all the more important to align the provision of housing, transport infrastructure and education. It also increases the importance of ensuring that funding mechanisms targeted to mitigate the delivery of planned growth are brought together. For example, the artificial split of funding provided through the New Homes Bonus scheme between upper and lower tier authorities does not support joinedup planning and resource allocation across County and District partners, responsive to local need. Transport, Economy & Environment Option One: Option The challenge of understanding the impact of planned growth and the identification of mitigation measures is further complicated by the professional skills being stretched across five organisations. The scale of activity within individual local planning authorities limits their ability to justify retention of specialist skills at a time when the availability of skilled professionals is already limited. For this reason, the devolution front-runners have tended to create single teams of economic development specialists sitting at combined authority level e.g. Manchester New Economy In the face of the scale of growth already identified it is clear that Buckinghamshire requires rapid delivery of new housing, significant upgrades to transport infrastructure and a sufficiency of high-quality school places. Any future model of local government must be better-equipped to deliver these at pace and scale than the status quo. In terms of planning for future housing need, the existing two-tier local authorities are in agreement that the Strategic Housing Market Area is at the Buckinghamshire level. This is a reflection of the fact that the southern part of Buckinghamshire, which generates a significant level of housing need is heavily constrained by statutory designations (e.g. Green Belt, AONB) meaning that unmet housing need from the south needs to be accommodated within the northern half of Buckinghamshire. Whilst joint working arrangements are in place to manage the process of identifying future housing need, the fact that the function is split across four Local Planning Authorities means the process for reaching consensus is protracted. Consensus is required for the Strategic Housing Market area because the redistribution of housing need in this way requires the agreement of all four Local Planning Authorities. The adoption of a single unitary model would internalise these discussions within a single organisation, as well as enabling consideration of housing distribution to be undertaken in parallel with other key infrastructure e.g. transport and education. 43 Buckinghamshire Council 44

25 Transport, Economy & Environment Transport, Economy & Environment Option Two: Multiple All local authorities within Buckinghamshire agree that there is a need to plan for housing numbers at the Buckinghamshire level. The current arrangement (which is analogous to the multiple unitary model for planning) requires joint working. There has been agreement that the joint working is currently not efficient, slowing down the plan making process. This currently leads to additional work being commissioned by the individual authorities, effectively, challenging each other and as such is not deemed a suitable model for the future. Moreover, it is considered that smaller scale third party contracts are likely to be more agile and flexible for service delivery, as compact geographic boundaries and service scales will attract more competition from Small to Medium Enterprises (SME s) and the voluntary sector. Option Three: Three with Combined Authority The new unitary authorities would retain the flexibility to design services around the different needs and challenges that Buckinghamshire s communities face, aligning services to insight and intelligence about customers needs. They would be able to build on existing joint working arrangements and alignments between authorities to develop joint solutions while retaining the ability to tailor services to local needs. Reorganising local government duties into a three model and a Combined Authority may achieve a range of opportunities for improved service performance in Buckinghamshire. For example, a Combined Authority could deliver a strategic plan for Buckinghamshire, whilst smaller Authority models remain focussed on the localism agenda, providing bespoke services to a particular geographical area or demographic, delivering better outcomes for local communities as a result of closer joint working and collaboration at a local level. Multiple smaller contracts for the same service across Buckinghamshire could be identified as a positive; delivering the service that genuinely represents the locality rather than a catch-all service. Although it should be noted this would come with an increased financial burden on the local authorities. Also, a larger/single unitary authority could spread any residual risk across a wider portfolio of business. However, a single unitary or a combined authority with multiple unitaries could achieve the same outcome with strong locality arrangements i.e. strategic commissioning at countywide level with differential local commissioning for certain services. For service areas like planning, it would not be completely possible to respond more acutely to the needs of specific regions as the housing market area is Buckinghamshire wide and as such due to various Green Belt and AONB, it is not possible to accommodate local needs locally. A three unitary with combined authority solution could provide the opportunity to balance the need for strategic and local decision making and creates the conditions for innovation and reform in service delivery, delivering better outcomes for our residents. However, this model raises important concerns around democratic accountability and how it may be harder to manage competing interests effectively, especially in the absence of a single point of accountability. Furthermore, for many local authorities to offer successful support services to organisations such as schools, SMEs and other local authorities relies on economies of scale, and the capacity to improve processes. The likelihood is that such measures could not be reached in a model where a two or three Authority model operates within Buckinghamshire as without achieving the savings from the rationalisation of these services, we would be unable to make a competitive commercial offer. Therefore support services would be delivered at a greater cost by individual authorities. As with the single unitary model, economy of scale is one of the benefits here, but to a lesser extent. For example, provision of multiple support services would still exist unless collaboration or a shared service was negotiated. This model would allow for priorities and commissioning to be influenced at a more local level, allowing for more agile and flexible delivery from smaller scale third party contracts and greater tailoring of services to the needs of the region by multiple smaller contracts across Buckinghamshire. This ability to tailor may come at a cost to the authorities, however would be an advantage to suppliers as they become better able to make decisions on the attractiveness of potential contracts. The current two-tier model is a prime example of this with over 7m spent annually throughout the district councils on support services such as HR, ICT and recruitment which are procured through 10 different suppliers. The use of alternative suppliers offers no degree of consistency to the services delivered and introduces additional interfaces between delivery mechanisms/contracts that might be avoidable, this brings with it an additional cost and possibly a risk to service delivery. The development of one unitary council would enable services to be delivered through one supplier (per service) improving the consistency and quality, as well as a reduction in cost. Economies of scale could be achieved within this model. For example, leads for specific services may be introduced as a way to integrate (much like option 2) and so see rationalisation of delivery and back office efficiencies. However, where services such as leisure, green spaces and community programmes are delivered locally, not only would duplication be maintained but there would still be multiple points of contact for residents. The solution of multiple unitaries and a combined authority would balance the requirement for strategic and local delivery of outcomes. Maintaining flexibility within the system to respond to local needs whilst building on already established joint working arrangements. 45 Buckinghamshire Council 46

26 Transport, Economy & Environment Model Benefits Challenges Mitigation Transport, Economy & Environment Summary In terms of future housing, the single unitary model complements the agreed Strategic Housing Market Area level. Implementing this model would therefore provide Buckinghamshire with a clearer, more strategic and holistic view of housing need thus offering greater opportunity to respond to that need. When accompanying this with the alignment of other parallel areas, (such as transport and education) for the setting and realisation of wider outcomes, the benefits strengthen further. In order for the localism agenda to be maintained and strengthened beyond its current position, a robust model for community engagement and local decision making through establishing community boards would be required. Three with a Combined Authority Disaggregating local services and strategic services whilst being able to prioritise locally One vision for Buckinghamshire balanced with localism of other services, albeit in Health and Social Care and Strategic Planning and Transport only Reaching the point of operating at best practice levels takes numerous years from implementation Inter-relation of services means the majority of services could be delivered by the combined authority, reducing role of each unitary Levels of bureaucracy remain across local government in Buckinghamshire Building upon lessons learned from previous combined authority implementation processes will enable the smoother transition to best practice although not for social care services which remain untested Introduction of an operating framework that plans and coordinates at a strategic level but delivers locally Benefits and Challenges Model Benefits Challenges Mitigation One Multiple Ability to share data and realise benefits through one network across all local authority services Greater collaboration of back-office services with greatest potential savings Unified outcomes across services and diversification of funding streams Develop and design services that align with the differing visions across the County Agile commissioning framework Maintaining services where Districts may have best practice, ensuring the retention of key skills/ knowledge across all authorities Localism agenda could be lost The scope to realise potential savings and share knowledge and best practice is at a smaller scale than a One Authority Disaggregation of strategic functions e.g. highways, social care Fragmented total local government spend in Buckinghamshire risks diminishing resilience of service provision With a comprehensive mobilisation the one unitary can build upon best practice across all service areas before full scale transformation Introduction of local area governance arrangements that promote a local voice alongside strategic leaderships Savings realisation may be smaller but this is mitigated by implementing shared services programmes Service performance summary Buckinghamshire County Council are currently delivering a high standard of support for adult social care, have accelerated improvement to children s social care, created proactive units for the prevention of CSE and established joint commissioning with public health. Buckinghamshire also has excellent levels of school performance. The new model must maintain these levels and respond to the priorities and challenges the county faces. Anticipated further demand on services, infrastructure and reducing budgets are set to put more pressure on already limited resources, rendering our current model of service delivery unsustainable. Each model of local government transformation offers opportunities for improved service Separating out provision of people and place services minimises potential for driving synergies e.g. in managing the wider determinants of health through one organisation performance and customer experience to residents in Buckinghamshire. However on balance, option one provides the greatest prospect for minimising disruption during transition and long-term service performance improvement. With all local government responsibilities within the remit of a single unified authority, the greatest opportunity for achieving best outcomes through diversifying service portfolio, data sharing for services including preventative services and combining resources. Any unitary model will facilitate improved data sharing, analytics and collaboration between services which will help to set joint and more meaningful priorities to achieve outcomes. For example, by combining 47 Buckinghamshire Council 48

27 housing, adult social care, benefits and welfare - areas currently separate but fundamentally linked in supporting the prevention agenda. Similarly, by joining leisure, housing and environmental health the authority would have greater opportunity to meaningfully influence and embed public health outcomes. These benefits would also be felt at the operational level where predictive analytics could aid tailoring of service and prevention and better coordination and oversight of services could flag up safeguarding issues early. The key benefit of a single unitary is that this would be done on a larger scale. A single unitary model would provide the greatest opportunity for economies of scale and as such improve customer experience, reduce the costs of running already-stretched services and more flexibly direct resources to areas of greatest priority. Rationalising back office services alone is estimated to save 7.7million. There are challenges maintaining (or improving) service performance throughout any transition to a unitary model. Maintaining services where districts have best practice, especially in relation to critical services such as housing, council tax and revenue and benefits is a risk to transition, particularly the retention of key, skilled and knowledgeable staff across all authorities. 11 Democratic Leadership & Accountability 49 Buckinghamshire Council 50

28 This section considers the potential impact of each of the options on democratic leadership and accountability at the strategic level of the new principal unitary authority or authorities and above. Local democracy is at the heart of local government. By establishing clear governance arrangements councils can ensure decisionmaking is fair, transparent and accountable. A key strength of local government is the democratic mandate to bring people and partners together to find local solutions and improve the quality of life for residents. This section considers two key factors: Ensuring appropriate levels of democratic accountability and engagement in decisions taken at all levels The swiftness and effectiveness of strategic decision-making by new organisations on behalf of Buckinghamshire as a whole Each of the options under consideration represents a different balance of these two factors. Options one and two could be seen as being at opposite ends of the spectrum, and option three offers a compromise that may protect the benefits of both, but raises some important further considerations around the governance and effectiveness of a combined authority. It is therefore essential in reorganising local government that there is a shared local understanding of what the new governance arrangements will be and how effectively they will support local democracy. As with other local authority reorganisation, any unitary option would involve dissolving existing organisations and creating new ones which require fresh elections. Engagement across Buckinghamshire residents, MPs, and partners informs us that there is overwhelming support for the idea of change, regardless of the option chosen, seeing opportunities in: Improving [the] economy, savings, better service to businesses and individuals Local Business [Improving the] co-ordination between departments County Supplier We ve got to do something to cut costs. I didn t realise it was cut so far. 60%...? Resident, Chalfont The current two-tier system creates challenge for residents to understand decision-making about local public services. This complexity can lead to residents becoming frustrated with unnecessary bureaucracy and disengaging from local politics. This weakens political public accountability and creates distance between political decision making and residents. All unitary options will have the advantage of clarifying local accountability through single unitary councillors responsible for all local authority services within a given area. Option One: Single Under this model, a single set of elected representatives supported by a single executive function would take decisions and oversee services for all of Buckinghamshire. This would enable strong leadership, with absolute clarity and visibility of responsibility and accountability, whereby blame cannot be passed between organisations. As part of a Buckinghamshire wide authority, all councillors would be able to influence and contribute to county wide policy and strategy. For example, a single set of councillors would be able to set the housing and waste strategy, rather than the current situation where one authority is responsible for waste disposal and another group of councillors are responsible for waste collection. Decision-making would be significantly more simple and quicker than the status quo. For example, for services that cross current district boundaries or affect current district and county services. Removal of municipal boundaries within the County will enable a closer focus on natural communities, providing more targeted and integrated services. The single authority would be able to speak and advocate for Buckinghamshire with a single voice on the regional and national stage. One voice will provide clearer liaison and negotiation with partners, whether it be for investment, delivery of outcomes or to maximise opportunities for devolution. Councillors in a new county wide unitary would be able to undertake a much wider role at scale, being accountable for the full range of decisions at each level by representing local issues for their ward and also influencing strategic decision-making by the council as a whole, making the role more attractive and influential. This could possibly attract a more diverse range of councillors in terms of age and background who would be more representative of the County s diverse population. A single unitary organisation could be perceived as having less flexibility and freedom to prioritise, commission and deliver local services tailored to local need. The political leadership of a single county unitary could be drawn to strategic leadership of the county as a whole, and would be at risk of becoming disconnected from local issues, where all resources become focussed on large, priority service areas, such as care, and where smaller areas may receive relatively less focus. Acknowledging and mitigating against this risk is paramount to the success of the single unitary model. These considerations are explored further in the local engagement and decision making section. 51 Buckinghamshire Council 52

29 Option Two: Multiple Option Three: Three with a Combined Authority This option would share the single unitary s benefits of a single political and executive function taking decisions about and overseeing all local authority services, albeit in multiple smaller areas. The key differences are the potential difficulty in joint decision making, which would inevitably continue to be needed between multiple new organisations, and the cost of duplicating governance arrangements. With multiple smaller unitary organisations, there would be more flexibility and freedom to prioritise, commission and deliver services that are responsive to the needs of smaller areas. However, important decisions that fall across the whole of Buckinghamshire may be more difficult to negotiate, such as transport, infrastructure, health integration and emergency planning. This would risk weakening economic growth and affect outcomes for all new unitaries. Therefore, a mechanism, such as a joint committee, would need to be developed to enable such decisions to be made with appropriate political accountability and scrutiny and in order to balance conflicting interests. In terms of leadership at the regional and national level, there would be multiple voices for Buckinghamshire when negotiating with health and police or indeed, central government. All devolution deals agreed to date have been to a combined authority or in the case of Cornwall, a county unitary. There is no reason to believe that a devolution deal would be made available to multiple unitaries without a formal arrangement for joint decision making such as a combined authority. Under a multiple unitary model, the democratic leadership and governance would be duplicated by the number of unitary models developed. A multiple unitary model would need more councillors than a single unitary. The balance to be struck in proposing the number of councillors for each model is between access to representation (expressed as a ratio of electors per councillor) and the practicalities of council size in terms of decision making and strategic planning. Either two or three unitaries would require more electors per councillor (than the single unitary) for each council to function effectively. This would lead to a higher cost of governance than that of a single unitary as the need for committee support, elections and allowances increases with each additional councillor and each authority although the costs involved are relatively small by comparison to other savings available. New unitary authorities created under this option would still require arrangements for enhanced locality working as some of the proposed new unitary organisations would still cover significant areas and populations. Comments made at one of the public focus groups, run by Ipsos MORI, suggested that residents would prefer more localised decision making than at the district level. For example, residents in Buckingham may prefer decisions about Buckingham to be taken by some sort of democratic representation of the town itself relating to the unitary authority s services, rather than at a unitary authority level. Discussions with health partners concerned their preferred approach for commissioning locally for health outcomes. Their view is that a population size of between 30,000 and 50,000 would represent the optimum size for locality based commissioning, indicating smaller units than existing district boundaries. For Buckinghamshire this is equivalent to between 11 and 18 areas. If the committee structure of a multiple unitary model in Buckinghamshire is similar to the current district council committee system then this would mean that decisions would continue to be seen as remote to the public. Existing examples of combined authorities as well as the provisions of the Cities and Devolution Act 2016 show that a number of alternative arrangements for governing a combined authority would be possible, for example: An elected mayor appointing a cabinet, comprising councillors from each of the unitary authorities within Buckinghamshire (in addition to the cabinets for each of the new unitaries). Alternative options include the leadership of the combined authority cabinet rotating between the leaders of the unitary councils. Setting up an additional scrutiny committee comprising councillors from each of the unitary authorities within Buckinghamshire. This body would scrutinise the decisions of the combined authority. Agreeing decision-making rules. For example, either the elected mayor could make executive decisions independently to the other councils in the area (after consultation); or the combined authority would take decisions as whole by voting on issues, with the membership of the combined authority comprising elected members from each of the unitary councils, or a combination of both approaches. The voting systems of the combined authorities nationally vary. Some issues may be decided by simple majority vote, others by two-thirds vote or some issues having a veto power over the elected mayor s powers. The intention of creating an elected mayor model would be to strengthen accountability. This might work for some cities, but in the context of Buckinghamshire this model may not be appropriate. A mayor might help to cut through competing interests around resource allocation, but the geography of Buckinghamshire may not be suited to the mayoral model as unlike a city region, Buckinghamshire is decentralised and includes a wide range of places and communities for whom representation by a single individual may not be appropriate. The primary benefit of a combined authority is that it offers a way of taking joined-up decisions on strategic issues by multiple sovereign organisations, bridging the gap created by dissolution of the county and avoiding the break-up of key services. However, the model raises important concerns around democratic accountability and how it may be harder to manage competing interests effectively, especially in the absence of a single point of accountability. This model provides a mechanism for central government to devolve national powers to a more local level. There are many centrallyrun services where outcomes for residents might be improved by local government running these locally and using its leverage, experience and democratic mandate to join up public service delivery. This proposition is particularly attractive in areas where there is an opportunity to create new economic growth opportunities through collective working beyond what is achievable through local councils alone, including but not solely where there is a need to plan strategically beyond local council boundaries. Pooled budgets from multiple unitary authorities (e.g. for adult social care) would require a combined authority to have strong governance and scrutiny arrangements over resource allocation. Even with this in place, this would be particularly challenging; the authorities would need to agree whether the Combined Authority has flexibility to use the funds across Buckinghamshire in response to demand, whether these would be restricted to be used in the area providing the funding. For example there would need to be clarity about decision making on housing allocations work if the Combined Authority develops one plan for Buckinghamshire. The complexity of the governance arrangements under a Combined Authority model could lead to confusion comparable to that already existing within the current twotier system. Creating a combined authority could mean that some of the proposed responsibilities for a new unitary would be pushed up into a new and additional legal entity and that there would be two councils 53 Buckinghamshire Council 54

30 operating in each area one called a and one called a Combined Authority. However, there is an opportunity to proactively and collaboratively redefine what sits in the strategic (combined authority) and operational (unitary tiers) of a combined authority and not be constrained by the current county/district template. Some lessons are available from existing combined authorities, but no precedent exists for a combined authority delivering social care services that have been disaggregated from a predecessor authority. Where services are the responsibility of the Combined Authority (for example Adult Social Care or Transportation) residents would contact their local councillor about an issue; in turn their local councillor would seek to influence the decision-making of a separate legal entity. This presents significant challenges for local residents and the new Councillors in fulfilling their role in bridging the gap between residents and decision-makers. The diagram below provides an illustrative picture of how the governance under a Combined Authority might work and relationship with a local councillor. It also demonstrates the added complexity this may cause to all stakeholders. Benefits and Challenges Model Benefits Challenges Mitigation Option 1 One A single point of accountability and responsibility for the quality of all local authority services within Buckinghamshire, supported by a single executive function. Decision-making would be significantly more simple and quicker than the status quo. The ability for Buckinghamshire to speak with a single voice on the regional and national stage. Greater clarity from the perspective of partners, suppliers, neighbouring areas A county-wide unitary might risk being perceived as too large to provide democratic leadership and accountability to smaller communities. Reductions in the overall numbers of elected representatives within the county area would need to be carefully balanced to ensure that sufficient political capacity remains to effectively represent all areas. A single unitary would need to embrace the principle of subsidiarity and ensure that decisions are taken as close as possible to the communities affected. Option 2 Multiple Clarified accountability for local authority services compared with the status quo, albeit within multiple smaller areas. More flexible and Greater freedom and flexibility than a single unitary to prioritise, commission and deliver services that are responsive to the needs of smaller areas. There would be no overall point of leadership or accountability for local authority services within Buckinghamshire. There would be no clear means to achieve effective joint decision-making with appropriate democratic engagement. Multiple new unitary authorities would be less able to speak with a single voice and may struggle to liaise and negotiate effectively with strategic partners. Historical precedents suggest that a devolution deal would be less likely in the absence of a combined authority or county unitary. A structure for joint decisions between new unitary authorities and liaison with partners would be required. If not a combined authority, then this could be a formal joint committee or other partnership structure. This may however present challenges for public accountability as it would need equivalent arrangements for ensuring that local councillors could scrutinise decisions on shared services or through other subnational arrangements. 55 Buckinghamshire Council 56

31 Model Benefits Challenges Mitigation Option 3 Three Unitaries with a Combined Authority Scope for clarified accountability for local authority services depending upon how a combined authority is constituted and governed. A well-governed combined authority could offer a route to effective joined-up decision making at scale and provide strong leadership on a regional and national stage. There would be an opportunity to consider the suitability of a directly elected mayor for Buckinghamshire In practice, a combined authority may struggle to effectively balance conflicting interests across member organisations and achieve effective joint decision-making, especially in the absence of a single point of accountability such as a mayor. Particular challenges would be likely to arise from health and social care services, where need is unlikely to be evenly distributed across member organisations, and decisions about resource allocation would be required to reflect this. Care would be required to ensure that decisions taken by a combined authority were subject to appropriate democratic accountability and scrutiny, especially in delivering statutory services on behalf of member authorities. The constitution and governance of a combined authority would need to be very carefully considered, with sufficient flexibility built in to enable learning and adaptation over time. Some lessons are available from existing combined authorities, but no precedent exists for a combined authority delivering social care services that have been disaggregated from a predecessor authority. In terms of leadership, there would be no single voice for the county, making it more difficult to negotiate and deliver effective, cross county and regional strategy and services. Option three has scope for clarified accountability for local authority services by means of a combined authority with the potential for an elected mayor or other appropriate mechanism of scrutiny and transparency. This could offer democratic advantages over the other options. However, it may struggle to balance conflicting interests across organisations and introduces other complexities leading to confusion; it also runs the risk of creating of additional legal entities, replicating the current two tier structure. The allocation of resources amongst health and social care services would also require careful consideration. On balance, option one appears more a realistic option for Buckinghamshire. Option two struggles to achieve the two key factors required for effective democratic accountability. Unlike a single unitary, it would have no single voice for the county and the ability to come to joint decisions and devolve services would be compromised. Similarly, with Option three (a combined authority), it may be harder to manage competing interests effectively, especially in the absence of a single point of accountability. Its complexity and risk of creating additional legal entities may also become a challenge. With a single unitary, its main risk of losing local level focus could be mitigated by establishing appropriate mechanisms within natural community areas. Democratic leadership and accountability summary A single unitary for Buckinghamshire would be able to make strategic decisions far more quickly and effectively and would save a greater amount of money compared with other options. It would also provide the opportunity to develop a new localism model which could be designed to reflect local differences. The single unitary model will allow for a single point of accountability and responsibility for the quality of all local authority services within Buckinghamshire. It will offer greater clarity to partners, suppliers, neighbouring areas and central government. Option two will also strengthen local democracy by removing the confusion of the two-tier system. Multiple unitary authorities would be able to commission and deliver services that are responsive to the needs of smaller areas. The costs of a localised committee structure in addition to the central committee structure for a multiple unitary will be higher, given the higher number of councillors and the need to replicate structures over two or three authorities. The key challenge of multiple unitary councils is that, without a formal arrangement for doing so, they would struggle to make joined up decisions on issues affecting the whole county area, such as health and social care integration. 57 Buckinghamshire Council 58

32 12 Local Engagement & Decision Making This section considers the potential impact of each of the options on local engagement and decision making, below the level of the new principal unitary authority or authorities. Effective and meaningful local engagement and decision making is essential to ensure that any local authority provides services in the best interests of residents. This is a significant consideration for any reorganisation of local government in Buckinghamshire and of substantial importance to the county s residents and businesses. Through interviews and surveys we have been told that there is a real appetite for local people to be involved in local decisions and influence the wider county agenda. (44% of residents in Buckinghamshire surveyed by Ipsos MORI think that giving people a say in the decisions that affect local services is the most important thing for local councils to consider). Residents and businesses have told us that they want to: be able to influence decision-making and get involved; understand how decision-making works and want be informed have a clear line of sight be able to hold decision-makers to public account; have trust in the fairness of the decisionmaking process; Residents value clear and strong political leadership; Each of the options for the future of local government in Buckinghamshire need to be tested against these criteria to ensure that residents and businesses are able to influence decision making and actively participate in a vibrant local democracy. Buckinghamshire has a particular track record of town and parish councils delivering services through devolved arrangements with the principal authorities. All five councils in Buckinghamshire worked collaboratively to implement the New Deal for Buckinghamshire in 2008, along with the then Buckinghamshire Association of Town and Parish councils. The agreement set out the County and District Councils agreement with Town and Parish councils with regard to: How they will consult and engage with Town and Parish councils in service planning and delivery The services they are able to devolve How their services might be enhanced through local council contributions. Since 2008, the implementation of the agreement has been variable. One example of progress involved the County Council devolving a set of highway related services to 86 of the 168 town and parish councils in the county, representing 75% of the total workload. These have included cutting grass verges, sign cleaning and hedge cutting enforcement. Whilst there were challenges in the handover of these services, the feedback from parishes who have taken on the devolved services is consistently positive. Wycombe District Council has recently also provided parish councils with grass cutting through a similar devolved arrangement. Arrangements for engaging with residents locally and devolving services to towns and parishes (double devolution) would be for each new unitary to determine. For each, this will need to take account of the capability of the new council(s) to support this work, and the will and ability of communities and towns and parishes to work with the new council in taking more on. At present there is a wide range of capacity and capability amongst town and parish councils, and each option would need to have a flexible approach to working with local partners. 59 Buckinghamshire Council 60

33 Option One: Single Option Two: Multiple Feedback from parish councils has highlighted the risk that the creation of one unitary authority for Buckinghamshire could lead to disconnection from communities and make it harder to engage with the new council. A countywide unitary would need to put in place strong arrangements for locality working to counterbalance this risk. To do this, a new single unitary authority would have the opportunity to design a comprehensive framework for localism and set out a flexible offer for local councils and communities matched to their local profile, capability and capacity. Doing this at scale would mean greater flexibility about what could be included and would enable bespoke solutions in each area. It would be possible to put Community Boards in place based on natural geographic communities in smaller areas than the current district councils provide, based around towns and parishes and natural clusters of parishes. One team, needing just one management structure, would also be able to share knowledge and skills across the county. There are established precedents for successful community engagement in similar sized unitaries: Before becoming a unitary; the county of Durham had seven district councils. The single unitary now works with 14 Area Action Partnerships, based on natural communities. These allow people to influence services, and give organisations including the county and town and parish councils, police, fire and health the opportunity to engage directly with local communities. Wiltshire s 18 community areas were identified by reference to geography, history, demographics and social patterns. These geographies focus on market towns and their hinterlands which have delegated executive powers. The associated Area Boards have multi agency membership; they are inclusive, informal and participative with hundreds of residents regularly attending meetings and substantial budgets being allocated locally. Cornwall Council is working with town and parish councils and community groups across Cornwall to increase their role in influencing and delivering local services. The Council recognise that many community-based services will only be able to continue if town and parish councils are supported and encouraged to play a more active role in their local design and delivery. There is a framework in place which sets out how town and parish councils and community groups can work with Cornwall Council at a level that suits them, from service monitoring and influencing contracts through to absorbing and delivering local services and assets. The combination of previous county and district services has enabled Cornwall to provide a more comprehensive offer than possible in a two tier system. It would be easier for a single unitary to support town and parish councils with large ambitions, as there would be a clearer distinction between the two. The larger unitaries will be able to follow a more flexible and strategic approach to determining special expenses and local precepts in accordance with the size and levels of responsibility of a wider variety of local councils. This could also be used tactically to offset any potential issues arising from council tax harmonisation. Removing district boundaries will provide an opportunity to focus service delivery to fit the needs of whole communities, reducing the scope for friction and deadlock in political decision-making at area level and clarifying ultimate accountability for decisions about all parts of the county area. Each elected member would be able to influence and hold to account all service delivery in their area as well as to have a say in county-wide strategic decisions. As with a single unitary, a two or three unitary authority model would enable each elected member to influence and scrutinise all the services currently provided by the county and district councils, albeit within smaller areas. Smaller councils may find it easier to maintain a closer connection with individual communities without putting special arrangements in place. A local focus on health and wellbeing would be entirely different for these areas. Local decisionmaking around priorities and service delivery, for areas such a public health, leisure and housing would be specific to those locations. Multiple unitaries would also be likely to have headquarters distributed across the county. This could help to foster a sense of local connection, although in practice the quality of engagement and communication with communities and local councils will be more important than the physical location of offices. Multiple unitaries would still need mechanisms for more local decision making below the unitary council level to reflect the differences in different community areas. Resident feedback is that district level is still not sufficiently local to truly reflect the needs of communities. For example, Members and residents from Buckingham have frequently stated that they feel a sense of distance from the district council based in Aylesbury. During the town and parish council workshops held to clarify the scope of the business case, Buckingham Town Council commented that: Section 106 discussions have often excluded towns and parish councils especially in the north of the county. There is no firm commitment to community development which is marginalised regarding passing on of S106 monies which are held at district level. Multiple unitaries would still cover large populations and diverse areas (especially in the north) so would still require enhanced approaches to localism. Smaller organisations do not automatically have a better connection with local residents. Feedback from the IPSOS MORI study shows that local means village or town to residents rather than district. At present at any given point there are likely to be more County Council employees delivering local services than district employees such as social workers, teachers and highway engineers. Each unitary would decide what, if anything, to offer to town and parish councils for devolution, although it is likely that the services identified in option one would be considered for this option also. Smaller geographical areas may have less flexibility in terms of what they can hand over due to having a smaller scale to manage and nuance such offers. For example, the initial cost of identifying the risks, mitigations and setting up of legal agreements to devolve non-priority potholes would be the same for each smaller multiple unitary as for the one larger single authority. Smaller, multiple unitaries would have less capacity to respond to ambition amongst larger parishes and town councils to take on more services. The difference between the two in terms of the population served would be less, and multiple unitaries may find it difficult to offer wholesale double devolution due to the smaller scale and the lower amount of financial savings achieved through reorganisation. It may be possible for multiple unitaries to pool resources and agree a shared approach to double devolution. 61 Buckinghamshire Council 62

34 Option One: Single Options two and three present the same opportunities, given that they would both have the same structure of councillors and geographic coverage below the level of principal authority. However, the presence of a combined authority adds some additional complexity for both residents and councillors. The opportunities for local engagement and decision making in a three unitary with a combined authority may allow residents to be involved in some form of local board or forum, however this would be for the authorities involved to determine. This option would also benefit from one set of councillors being responsible and accountable for all services, although the lines of accountability would be more complex, as the services delivered by the combined authority would be accountable to a representative board rather than directly to local members. Arrangements for locality working and engagement would require negotiation between all three local authorities and the combined authority, making decision making slower and more complex. New unitary authorities would be required to devolve up to a combined authority whilst also devolving down to local councils and/or area boards. The resulting arrangements could risk becoming complex and inconsistent. It would be more difficult to devolve services provided by the multiple authorities, as any devolution of services would require an agreed approach. For example, offering a package of grass-cutting including that provided by the combined authority and the multiple authorities would be much more complex due to the requirement for more organisations to ratify any agreement. Town and parish councils may find it harder to have a voice, for example on transport, due to the combined authority not being directly locally accountable. At present elected members have strong links with town and parish councils; while this would be likely to continue, elected members would have less direct influence on services provided by the combined authority than at present. Benefits and Challenges Model Benefits Challenges Mitigation Option 1 One Option 2 Multiple Option 3 Three Unitaries with a Combined Authority Greater scale and financial capacity may enable the development of a more comprehensive offer of devolution to localities and local councils Smaller democratic units may find it easier to maintain a closer fit to natural communities, a better understanding of their distinctive needs and greater freedom to respond appropriately. As for option 2 Ensuring appropriate engagement in decisionmaking and democratic representation at a local level will be a key challenge Developing an approach to localism that is sufficiently flexible to deal with wide variations in local context, capability and capacity To different extents, new unitary authorities created under this option would still cover large areas and populations and would therefore still require enhanced approaches to localism. New unitary authorities would be required to devolve up to a combined authority whilst also devolving down to local Councils and / or areas boards. The resulting arrangements could risk becoming complex and inconsistent. A new unitary authority would have an opportunity to design and implement at scale a comprehensive offer to communities and local councils. New unitary authorities would have the opportunity develop approaches to local engagement empowerment that are appropriate to their respective circumstances. As for option two, although a combined authority would also provide the opportunity to establishing a voice for local representatives at a county-wide level. Local engagement and decision making summary Any reorganisation of local government would seek to engage locally. The multiple unitary followed by a single unitary would be able to offer a more comprehensive set of services for town and parishes through devolved service arrangements by combining services currently provided by the County and District Councils. This would be more challenging for a combined authority working with three unitary authorities, because there would still be different authorities responsible for services in each area, and any shared approach between services would need the agreement of the county wide combined authority and each multiple authority. The Community Board model which could form part of a single unitary offers a local model of engagement and decision making that may mitigate perceived issues of scale, although this would take time to embed throughout Buckinghamshire. The multiple unitary option will be able to make local decisions at a local level at pace, albeit at a greater cost per capita. The multiple unitaries working with a combined authority would not be able to engage with communities on the same wide range of services, and so some of the confusion about who does what, and the need for different authorities to engage in the area, would remain with the third option. 63 Buckinghamshire Council 64

35 13 Sustainability This section focuses on key areas of local government reorganisation that stakeholders have told us are important to a future model of local government in Buckinghamshire: Economic growth and infrastructure Skills and capacity Business and the supply chain Coterminosity with partners For the purposes of this appraisal sustainability is defined as: Creating a model to promote Buckinghamshire as a hub for growth, infrastructure, skills, partnership working and businesses and suppliers, in a way that is engaging and sustainable, and offers the opportunity to reduce costs and improve processes The ability of local government to adapt and change is crucial to the future economic success and the continued viability of service provision. In recent years the County Council, district councils and partners across Buckinghamshire have risen to the challenges facing them, including the reduction of Rate Support Grant, the need to become financially self-reliant and resilient, and increasing demands on housing, health and social care Buckinghamshire Council 66

36 Economic characteristic of Buckinghamshire The economy is characterised by high levels of productivity, with a strong and vibrant SME community that is entrepreneurial by nature. The economy is valued at 14.8bn GVA employing some 259,000 people. Economic growth is predicted to match or exceed that of the wider South East, although there are signs that pressures on infrastructure (physical and digital) are in danger of acting as a constraint on the full economic potential being realised. Key requirements for businesses looking to grow in Buckinghamshire are connectivity to markets and access to skills. Investment in infrastructure is critical to enabling planned levels of housing to be delivered, thereby growing the available skills pool, whilst it also improves connectivity to adjoining areas. Economic Attractiveness The role of the public sector needs to be to enable and facilitate economic growth, a reflection of the fact that the private sector is fundamental to long term economic success. Potential investors seek clarity and assurances that opportunities for investment will be realised; confidence that the public sector investment required will be delivered as planned; and greater certainty that the planning processes are predictable and efficient. Working in Partnership Partnership working in local government is an important feature of public sector service delivery. Effective partnerships can achieve objectives through co-operation, shared vision and implementation. At the same time however, they can also present difficulties, such as differing time scales and prioritisation, lack of planning and risk sharing accountability. Partnerships can improve trust and collaboration between parties in order to provide more flexible and efficient use of resources, creating opportunities for service co-design and joint commissioning, with the alignment of aspirations and playing on partner strengths, skills and sharing remote working. Skills and Capacity Economic growth depends heavily on the quality of the workforce and the ability to expand the supply of skilled workers. Whilst Buckinghamshire has one of the best-educated workforces in the country, the LEP s Skills & Employability Board research highlights that there is both a skills shortage and a skills gap. With one in three employers feeling that young people are poorly prepared for work we know that in order for Buckinghamshire to thrive, more needs to be done to establish a range of opportunities that enable our young people to transition into work. The same research also demonstrates a particular challenge in terms of retaining young people within Buckinghamshire at 18. The business community has shown a preference for a simplified structure for local government, seeing that as a means of reducing duplication, simplifying public sector bureaucracy and speeding up the decision making process. The Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) was established in 2012 with all five councils represented at Board level. Its Strategic Economic Plan forms the basis for identifying investment priorities. The LEP has secured 32.8m of investment through the Local Growth Fund towards the delivery of infrastructure projects in Buckinghamshire. Buckinghamshire Business First (BBF) is another key business organisation whose membership consists of over 8000 small, medium and large businesses with c. 2,500 contracts. With BBF labelling Buckinghamshire a micro-business county (70% of all businesses) its support for small business growth has been extremely influential. 67 Buckinghamshire Council 68

37 Option One: Single Economic Growth & Infrastructure A single unitary authority would provide strategic leadership, accountability and responsibility by articulating a clear vision for economic growth. Such a vision set out in a single spatial strategy for Buckinghamshire - would provide clarity in the location of investment opportunities, offering a broader range of choices than would be otherwise be possible. The spatial strategy would enable policy initiatives across key sectors in particular housing, transport and education to be joined up to a common vision. Not only would this simplify the assessment and decision making processes, it would enable funding mechanisms currently split across different levels of local government to be joined up. As a single body it would offer simplified decision making arrangements, generating greater confidence amongst investors to bring forth their proposals, and result in those proposals being considered more efficiently and at less cost to both parties. It would have the flexibility to respond quickly to changes in market conditions. It could put in place a single point of contact capable of providing tailored business support. The larger resource base available to a single unitary authority would help retention of specialist skills and advisors, as well as enabling more effective working with town and parish councils. Skills & Capacity A single unitary authority would be able to strengthen the partnership working with the LEP. This would improve consistency in targeting activities, allowing resources to be deployed more efficiently and effectively. This could include developing the relationship between the business and education sectors so that students develop employability skills and an awareness of a diverse range of careers. Such a body would also be in a position to reinvest savings in skills programmes in support of businesses, allowing it to better deliver the skills pipeline required for key growth sectors. Business & Supply Chain A single unitary authority offers greater opportunity to realise economies of scale, ultimately reducing the unit cost of services. A single procurement process for services currently spread across the District Councils and County Council would provide for more strategic control both financially and operationally. Creation of a true one stop shop for both the community and elected members would alleviate current confusion over who is responsible for which service in their local area. Elected members would have a clearer oversight of services delivered in their area as transparency would be increased by procurement and delivery of services by a single unitary authority. By having greater control over the end to end supply chain, a single unitary authority would have greater insight into customer needs. This would enable improvements in the commissioning and monitoring of service delivery which could be implemented quickly and efficiently. Waste services (currently spending 50m+) are an example of this as both collection and disposal could be procured as one service, thereby creating opportunities to achieve a reduction in the unit cost of service delivery. A single unitary authority would be able to explore the potential to put in place alternative contracting arrangements where this is required to actively encourage proposals to come forward from locally based SME and/or VCS operations. Coterminosity with Partners The simplified partnership arrangements possible with a single unitary authority would allow for swifter decision making between partners as well as enabling new partnerships to be established more easily - for example, bringing Public Health activities alongside leisure services so as to use pooled budgets to focus on achieving better whole life outcomes for residents A single unitary authority would enable social care and housing to be planned for and commissioned using a truly integrated approach, which would take a longer term view on the best use of the total housing stock within the area. This would offer new opportunities to develop initiatives that help improve the quality of life for the individual and manage down the future costs of care. The geography of the Clinical Commissioning Group for health commissioning would match that of a single unitary authority, offering the opportunity to implement an integrated model of delivery for health and social care by Buckinghamshire Council 70

38 Option Two: Multiple Option Three: Three with Combined Authority Economic Growth & Infrastructure We know from the Strategic Economic Plan that investor confidence is generated by clarity of vision, simplified processes and greater certainty in the decision making processes. A multiple unitary model would be dependent upon strong and effective working between the individual bodies if the advantages of the single unitary authority were to be realised. Whilst each unitary authority could prepare a spatial strategy for their area this would still need to be set within a framework that covers Buckinghamshire the agreed Strategic Housing Market Area. The need for joint working in this way would bring with it the need for additional bureaucracy, and by extension add inertia to the system overall The smaller scale of individual authorities under a multiple unitary solution would restrict the choice available to potential investors. Constraints on growth in the local economy would have an impact on the longer-term financial sustainability of individual authorities. The more limited resource base available to a smaller unitary authority would make the retention of specialist skills and advisors more challenging and is likely to increase the need of relying on specialist external consultants, thereby incurring additional costs. Skills & Capabilities In a multi unitary model the opportunities to address the skills shortage and skills gaps would be diminished by the duplication of governance, the constraints that would exist because of the smaller geographical boundaries and the more limited opportunities for reinvestment. A skills strategy for each unitary could provide a clear vision for the area and form the basis for deploying available resources. The LEP would continue to be the main partnership planning for economic growth, with the unitary authorities feeding into its prioritisation and planning mechanisms. Locally there would be opportunities for bringing employers and education providers together to showcase careers/progression routes. A key challenge with the multi unitary model would be duplication and the potential for conflicting priorities. This would be particularly evident in areas where local authorities already struggle to recruit and retain talent skilled talent, including planners, social workers and procurement professionals Business & Supply Chain The multi unitary model could adopt alternative contracting arrangements in order to encourage proposals from the SME and voluntary sector. However the smaller scale of commissioning by individual authorities inherent within a multiple unitary model means that any potential risk to service delivery would be harder to manage or offset. Coterminosity with Partners The multi unitary model offers the potential for individual authorities to tailor their priorities to the needs of their local communities. However for those organisations operating on a larger scale such as housing associations the model would lead to additional complexities due to each individual authority having different approaches. Those complexities would manifest themselves in those organisations incurring additional costs that might in turn act as a drag on investment decision making. Achieving partnerships in planning services would require each unitary to hold a shared vision and align resources accordingly. There would be a need for additional governance resulting in additional costs, as well as introducing inertia into the decision making process. There would be a need to put in place some form of joint working in respect of health commissioning, again introducing additional costs and inefficiencies into the system. Economic Growth & Infrastructure On the assumption that economic development is included within the remit of the combined authority (as a strategic planning function), this model could provide a vehicle for joined-up decisions made on behalf of new unitary authorities that would improve significantly on any less formal arrangements under option two. A combined authority would, however, face the challenge of how to reconcile the views of a number of unitary authorities in order to arrive at a single perspective. There would be a need for an early discussion once the unitary authorities had been established in order to determine the scope of activities that would be managed by the combined authority. The likelihood is that any such arrangement would be able to move less quickly in making decisions about economic development than a single unitary organisation and, depending upon the governance arrangements selected, would be unlikely to offer a single clear point of accountability and responsibility. These considerations, along with a lack of clarity and certainty during the set up period for a combined authority, could have a negative impact on investor confidence. Skills & Capabilities This model would suffer from the inefficiencies and inertia inherent with duplication in governance, potential conflicting strategic priorities, more limited geographical boundaries and smaller reinvestment possibilities. If the combined authority were to take the lead on the skills agenda the individual authorities would need to agree to a consistent approach and allocation of resources to enable efficient planning and identification of opportunities for skills development. The need to put in place effective co-ordination mechanisms would add additional costs and inertia to the decision making system. Business & Supply Chain Subject to the individual authorities reaching agreement, there is the opportunity to use the scale of the combined authority to develop a differential approach to the contracting of services, in a way that is similar to the single unitary authority model. As with the multi unitary authority model, the existence of multiple commissioning bodies (with some functions commissioned at the Buckinghamshire level, and others commissioned more locally) will add a level of complexity for service providers. That complexity is likely to be reflected in additional costs being incurred, increasing unit costs for services. With the presumption that public health would be commissioned at combined authority level, a significant budget would need to be set aside to secure the services required. Coterminosity with Partners Additional capacity in commissioning and contracting would be required to ensure services are available for residents and businesses, resulting in additional costs as a consequence of limited opportunities to realise economies of scale, or achieve optimal integration between service areas. However, a combined authority may have the ability to improve partnership arrangements, especially given the strategic nature of the body. For example, by focusing on economic development the LEP could be formally represented creating a single economic development team which sets out a unified pitch to investors, thereby generating increased interest in Buckinghamshire as a robust, strategic and attractive proposition. 71 Buckinghamshire Council 72

39 Benefits and Challenges Model Benefits Challenges Mitigation One Single spatial strategy providing clarity on economic development opportunities Single point of contact for potential investors offering tailored support that enables investors to make quick timely decisions The single unitary matches the footprint of the federated CCGs and likely future configuration of a single CCG Offers opportunity for ongoing co design and joint commissioning with strategic partners such as the CCG - with the least bureaucratic burden Decision making on economic development potentially seen as remote from local communities Achieving strategic commissioning that supports providers of all sizes and at all levels social value issue Involvement of Community Boards in developing the spatial strategy will help ensure local input into the strategic framework Role of town and parish councils (including their Neighbourhood Plans) as part of the CIL regime offers opportunities for local priorities to be addressed Model Benefits Challenges Mitigation Three with a Combined Authority Preserving the current model of strategic commissioning and service offering, diversity or provision, capacity and codesign with CCG. A Buckinghamshire combined authority matches the footprint of the federated CCGs and likely future configuration of a single CCG Sustainability section summary Preparation of economic development strategy complicated by needing to take into account the views of three separate bodies Levels of bureaucracy remain across local government in Buckinghamshire by commissioning and contracting through 4 governance arrangements A joint session would need to be held between the three new bodies in order to determine how the relationships between the new bodies would work in respect of economic development Multiple A single strategy for each unitary area offers the opportunity to provide clarity on economic development opportunities smaller geographical scale brings the offer closer to the local community Limited support and offers available to potential investors by virtue of working at smaller geographical scale. The scope to realise potential savings, share knowledge and best practice is at a smaller scale than a single unitary authority Disaggregation of strategic functions e.g. highways, social care. Will present challenges to the federated CCGs to work with multiple administrations and may well slow down the rate of progress because of the increase in decision making routes Joint working between unitary authorities might enable an improved economic development offer; however this would likely be at an additional cost. Economic Growth & Infrastructure A successful economy is fundamental to the long term sustainability of any new local government model for Buckinghamshire. Potential investors require clarity on opportunities for investment, confidence that plans for public sector investment to support economic growth are delivered, and certainty that the process to be followed in seeking permissions for economic growth is predictable. A single unitary model offers the scale, resource base and range of opportunities that are necessary to fulfil these requirements in the most cost efficient and effective way. Whilst a combined authority could be established to provide leadership at a Buckinghamshire geography, its effectiveness would be dependent upon the constituent bodies agreeing to place accountability and responsibility with that authority. Such an arrangement is likely to be not as effective, as well as requiring additional governance arrangements to be put in place that would not be necessary with a single unitary model. Skills & Capabilities A single unitary authority model is likely to enable the most cost efficient and effective governance arrangements to be put in place for Buckinghamshire. Decision making processes would be simplified and duplication removed enabling faster decision making on issues. Whilst the other models could put in place mechanisms to improve co-ordination of activity at a larger scale, these would be less effective as there would be multiple bodies involved each with their own statutory standing. Business & Supply Chain A single unitary authority model offers the opportunity to realise the greatest efficiencies through economies of scale. Whilst all the models could adopt alternative contracting arrangements that encourage proposals from local SME and the VCS community, the single unitary model enables any residual risk to service delivery to be spread across a single organisation more easily and effectively. 73 Buckinghamshire Council 74

40 The multi unitary model with a combined authority could offer an alternative model with a combined authority holding high value, complex contractual arrangements, with the unitary authorities holding the remaining contracts. Coterminosity with Partners A single unitary authority model provides coterminosity with the geography used for health commissioning, consistent with the government s strategic plan of health and social care integration. The multi unitary option would present difficulties both in relation to achieving integration and in the delivery of the range and breadth of services due to the smaller population of each unitary, unless there were effective collaborative arrangements put in place or a combined authority established. Each option offers Buckinghamshire the opportunity to expand local businesses and the ability to operate successfully throughout the supply chain. However, there are variations in the quality of services that can be delivered by each option, as well as in the potential for savings and the responsibilities of the differing levels of authority; yet ultimately the decision needs to be made based on demand in the area. The cost-efficient delivery of investment in business infrastructure and skills development in support of job creation is integral to facilitating economic growth that is sustainable. The single unitary model offers the scale of activity, combined with the flexibility of a single organisation that would enable collaborative working with partners to be maximised. 14 Approach to assessing the options 75 Buckinghamshire Council 76

41 This section describes the information and approach used to undertake the financial and nonfinancial analysis. Approach to the financial analysis The financial analysis underpinning this report has considered the likely costs, savings, financial standing and risk, which are estimated to arise under each of the three options. Data has been drawn from the LG Futures report of June 2016; a data request provided by the District Councils in August 2016 and published data sources (CIPFA Stats; RA/ RO; Local Government Funding Settlement, Statements of Account for 2015/16 and MTP Budget plans for 2016/17 onwards). The findings have then been considered and scored against the following criteria: The modelling has demonstrated that a single unitary provides the greatest potential opportunity for efficiency savings. Despite estimated transition costs and the cost of council tax harmonisation being greatest in this option it has the highest potential return on investment and lowest pay-back period. Return on Investment: based on the cost of transition, potential to generate savings and the pay-back period; Financial standing: based on risk, ongoing VFM and financial sustainability for each option Summary of key matrix The table below summarises the key findings from the Financial Modelling undertaken to support this options appraisal. Details of the modelling and assumptions used can be found at Appendix 2. Single m Two m Three m Three plus Combined m Efficiency savings (representing the estimated annual saving achievable by year 5) Transition costs (representing the total estimated cost of change over the 5 year period) Cost of Council Tax Harmonisation (the cost in year 1 of harmonisation to the lowest precepting authority) Return on investment 99% 54% 33% 46% 3.1 yrs (North) 2.2 yrs (North) Pay back period (the estimated time to recover 2.6 yrs (North) 2.2 yrs 5+ yrs (SE) 5+ yrs (SE) transition costs from 1 April 2019) 3.6 yrs (South) 3.3 yrs (SW) 2.3 yrs (SW) Estimated net 5 year cost / saving The following sections provide further analysis of the assumptions made including consideration of each unitary separately within Options two and three. Efficiency savings One of the key factors in assessing the viability of each option is the ability to generate savings. Savings are based on the MTP budget papers of the existing councils plus a data request provided by the County and District Councils in August The model estimates that savings could be achieved from each option compared to the current two-tier arrangements as detailed in the table below: Efficiency savings Democratic processes Senior staffing Service opportunities Single m Two m Three m Three plus Combined m Assumptions Reduced number of members, overall committees and support. It is assumed that a single unitary would have 98 members; whereas in the other options there is assumed to be 187 members. This still represents savings on the current 236 member structure; plus other savings from combining members support, committees, policy and corporate support. These savings are reduced slightly in the combined authority model as it is assumed that this model would require specific additional support In streamlining senior management structure, the potential for savings in the three and combined authority models are reduced due to the collaborative working already in place between Chiltern and South Bucks District Council This focuses primarily on merging services (such as Environment, Planning, Communities, Housing, Leisure and Revs & Benefits) and delivering them to the most efficient level in Buckinghamshire. The potential for savings reduces significantly in the three unitary option due to the significant collaborative working already in place between Chiltern and South Bucks District Council. 77 Buckinghamshire Council 78

42 Efficiency savings Single m Two m Three m Three plus Combined m Assumptions Efficiency savings Single m Two m Three m Three plus Combined m Assumptions Service diseconomies This relates to ongoing dis-economies of scale in providing services currently provided by the County Council including the need for a two and three unitary council to appoint Directors of Public Health, Children s Services and Adult Social Care. It is assumed that the Director of Public Health is shared across all councils, however separate Children s Services and Adult Social Care Directors are appointed in the two unitary model and then shared in the three unitary model between two of the three unitaries. These are reduced in the combined authority model. Property Revenue cost savings from the rationalisation of property holdings. This is based on efficiencies from combining the estate, management of property and from a reduction in space required due to overall reduced FTE. The savings are reduced for the combined authority as it is assumed that it will retain separate base and support function; however greater savings could be achieved through 'hosting' of the combined authority. Total Back office Savings from merging Support Services for the new council. A saving of approx 10% has been assumed in the single and two unitary model based on the estimated size of teams brought together; and of 5% in the three unitary/combined model. This is then further reduced in the combined authority model to reflect the need for separate back office support for the combined authority. Consolidated Systems Reduced costs of single system platforms in the new councils. The model assumes a 10% saving on combined IT spend in the single unitary; 5% of combined spend in the two and three unitary models. The assumed saving is further reduced in the combined authority due to the assumption that separate systems may need to be maintained, however this could be overcome by the 'hosting' of the combined authority by one of the new unitary councils. The greatest potential for saving is estimated to arise from the creation of a single unitary council arising primarily from consolidation of back office functions, contract economies of scale, property and systems efficiencies. Within the two unitary and three unitary options, savings potential reduces. In particular in the three unitary option due to the extent to which the existing district councils already collaborate on both front line and support services. Savings are estimated to be broadly similar for the combined authority; however there is potential for higher savings should the combined authority be hosted by one of the new unitary councils. In this situation it is estimated that savings could be between 6.1m- 6.5m. This would increase the potential return on investment to around 54%. The assessment of benefits is limited to that which could be achieved from consolidation of functions. Further benefit could be achieved as part of the change process through transformation of services. The potential for transformation change (for example adoption of best in class ) is estimated to be highest for a single unitary around for example functions such as support services; however it has not been possible to quantify the extent of this potential. There is also some academic research into diseconomies of scale in local government in the larger unitary councils in particular, which is considered further in the assessment of ongoing value for money. Contract Efficiencies Larger contracts, efficiencies and economies of scale 79 Buckinghamshire Council 80

43 Transitional costs In order to establish a new unitary council significant transitional costs will arise. In assessing the viability of each option an analysis has been undertaken to broadly estimate the expected costs of change in relation to each option as follows: Efficiency savings Single m Two m Three m Three plus Combined m Assumptions Efficiency savings Early Retirement / Redundancy Single m Two m Three m Three plus Combined m Assumptions Cost related to redundancy and early retirement linked to the estimated savings in FTE. Assumes that the proposed cap of 95k on exit packages will come into effect. Transition Programme Team Recruitment & Interim capacity Corporate Systems Transition Disaggregation costs Assumes a team of 3-5 posts over 3 years per authority with some dis-economy / duplication of effort. The transition team is reduced slightly in the combined authority model as there is not assumed to be a need to work on disaggregation of functions Assumption is that current staffing across the five organisations will be deployed to manage the transition as far as possible. This includes transition cost of merging teams and functions in the new councils Covers cost of IT integration including data transfer. Assumes the use of legacy systems, consolidation of Revenues & Benefits and Planning systems and other system integration costs. In the combined authority it is assumed that transition costs would be smaller as it is assumed the combined authority would maintain the legacy County Council ERP and social care systems. The need to consolidate other systems (such as Rev & Bens) is reduced in the two and three models; off-set in part by assumed diseconomies of scale / duplication of effort Relates specifically to the disaggregation of legacy County Council services such as social care services, including client data etc. Harmonisation of Terms and Conditions Due to small differentials between the national pay & conditions at districts and local pay at the County Council. Other costs Covers the cost of closedown of legacy councils, legal costs, communications, signage, contract novation, cultural change and skills. Contingency Total It is estimated that the level of investment requirement to facilitate the change would be broadly similar for all three options. In the single unitary option this reflects the cost of combining legacy district and County Council functions into a single entity; in the other options change drivers include split out and combining legacy County Council services as well as duplication and dis-economies in the change process. The costs are expected to be lowest for the combined authority option as this provides the lowest level of change to existing service provision. Disaggregation cost relatingof the splitting out of Adult Social Care, Children s Social Care, Education and Learning, Highways, Environment and Communities functions currently carried out by the County Council, could be further minimised by separate local agreements to jointly provide these functions. 81 Buckinghamshire Council 82

44 Harmonising Council Tax Where unitary authorities are formed by combining existing authorities there will be a process to harmonise council tax levels for residents of the new authority. The scale of change in the council tax paid by residents will be determined by the differences in the district council element of council tax. Variations are relatively small: the lowest is Wycombe ( at Band D) and the highest is Chiltern ( ). The county, fire and police elements are the same across the whole county and would not change, although the county element would be amalgamated into the new unitary rates. Parish precepts would remain unchanged. In , district councils were able to increase their Band D council tax by up to 1.99% or 5 if their Band D council tax was in the lower quartile. Upper tier councils were able Single Average Band D at 1 April 2019 (including Care precept) Average Reduction in Band D (from 1 April 2018) to increase their Band D by an additional 2% to raise funding for social care (on top of the existing 1.99% for other services). In assessing the impact of council tax harmonisation under the three options, it is assumed that the existing and new authorities will continue to adopt the 1.99% increase and the 2% social care precept in setting council tax. The tax base in each district council area has been taken from published MTP for three of the four districts and estimated in the fourth district council area, in line with the increases assumed by the other three councils. It is assumed that council tax harmonisation would take place in one year (assumed to be on 1 April 2019) to the lowest presenting authority. The estimated precept and cost of harmonisation for each option as at 1 April 2019 on this basis is as follows: Average % change in Band D (from 1 April 2018) Est. Council Tax Base at 1 April 2019 Reduction in Council Tax Income (compared to budget for 2019/20) % 216,592-2,221,076 Two % 216,592-1,674,458 Three % 216, ,042 Three plus Combined Authority % 216, ,042 The reduction shown as is the estimated average impact of the changes, with actual reductions or increases varying by district as follows: Option 1 Band D as at 1 April 2016 (excluding county, parishes, police and fire) Average Band D as at 1 April 2018 Lowest Band D and 1 April 2019 (including Care precept) Change in Band D (from 1 April 2018) % change in Band D(from 1 April 2018) Est. Council Tax Base at 1 April 2019 Reduction in Council Income (compare to budget for 2019/30) Aylesbury Vale % 71, ,147 Chiltern % 44,060-1,598,340 South Bucks % 32, Wycombe % 68, ,793 Option 2 North 216,592-2,221,076 Aylesbury Vale % 71, ,887 South Chiltern % 44,060-1,598,340 South Bucks % 32, Wycombe % 68, ,793 Option 3 North 216,592-1,674,458 Aylesbury Vale % 71, ,887 South East Chiltern % 44, ,308 South Bucks % 32, ,587 South West Wycombe % 68, , , ,042 This shows that the cost of council tax harmonisation is greatest in option one (single unitary). Under option two, the north unitary would benefit from gaining the Social Care precept on existing services. The cost of harmonisation is lower under this option; however it would be borne solely by the south unitary. In the three unitary model the average cost of harmonisation is the lowest, however the cost of harmonisation is borne solely by the south east unitary. It has been assumed that within a combined authority model, the remaining unitary councils will still be able to raise the additional 2% Social Care precept as per the multiple unitary options. 83 Buckinghamshire Council 84

45 Summary Financial Model The purpose of the financial model is to look in more detail at the estimated impact of reorganisation on each of the options and the individual unitary councils that are created. It shows an approximation of size based on the disaggregation of revenue expenditure using the Settlement Funding Assessment 2017/18 (as published by DCLG in the Settlement) as a proxy for need in splitting the legacy County s budget in the two unitary and three unitary models. This measure is also used as a basis for apportioning potential savings between the two and three unitary options. These are two key assumptions in formation of the model and the following risks should be noted: Council Legacy Structure County Council District Councils Total Bucks Option 1 SIngle Option 2 North South Total Bucks North South East South West Total Bucks Option 3 North (excl CA) South East (excl CA) South West (excl CA) Combined Authority Total Bucks 85 Net Budget (est at Y3 2021/22) 000 Transition costs (total) 000 Council Tax harmon. (5 year total) 000 Efficiency savings (annual by Y5) 000 Need is not uniform across Buckinghamshire and potentially funding allocations would need to be revisited by DCLG on the creation of multiple unitary councils. In particular there could be discrepancies in the three unitary model between funding and the need for high cost, demand led, social care services. These, however, are not estimated to be significant at this stage in relation to the creation of individual unitary councils. The ability to generate savings may not arise in the same proportions as the funding allocation suggests; for example the south unitary potentially has a greater ability (and the north unitary a lesser ability) to generate savings than the model suggests. 5-year saving Net 5 year cost/ saving 000 Return on investment % Savings as % NBR Payback from 1 April 2019 years General reserves as % NBR % 336, % 46, % 383, ,797 16,170 9,066-18,200-70,606-45,420 99% 4.70% % 150,244 7,055-2,008-4,264-16,342-11,295 63% 2.70% % 223,864 9,000 8,124-6,035-23,129-6,005 46% 2.60% % 374,107 16,055 6,116-10,299-39,471-17,300 54% 2.60% ,246 5,250-2,008-2,262-8,325-5,083 47% 1.40% % 93,114 5,107 2,817-1,225-4,507 3,416 10% 1.30% % 132,158 5,115-1,800-1,977-7,275-3,960 42% 1.50% % 377,517 15, ,463-20,107-5,627 33% 1.40% ,666 3,118-2,008-2,238-8,710-7,600 78% 3.40% % 44,612 3,031 2,817-1,212-4,716 1,132 16% 2.60% % 53,875 2,998-1,800-1,956-7,611-6,413 71% 3.50% % 216,422 1,750-1, ,575 10, ,405-21,037-11,131 46% 1.40% - - Option 1 Option one is estimated to result in the creation of a single unitary of around 367m. This would be a large unitary, similar in size to Bristol or Wiltshire with only eight other unitaries or Met districts larger (benchmarked CIPFA Stats 15-16). The model shows that sufficient general fund reserves would be available under Option one to fund the transition costs without the combined General Fund dropping below 5% of the NBR. Pay back is estimated at 2.2 years with the highest potential return on investment and an estimated overall 45.4m net saving over the five year period; taking account of transition costs, council tax harmonisation and a gradual phasing of potential savings over the first three years following transition. Overall, the analysis showed that the one unitary would be capable of generating greater financial benefits and savings over the five year period. The larger organisation would be able to use its greater economies of scale to generate more savings and efficiencies, particularly in corporate and back-office services. There are further savings that can be achieved in other services. The level of savings is in line with the experience of other authorities who have already implemented a single unitary council model on a county geography. It is expected that there will be further savings opportunities in a number of areas in addition to the headline opportunities once all services are amalgamated. The level of savings potential would contribute significantly to the financial health and stability of the local government structure in the county. The scale of (net) savings that is estimated would be significantly larger than the current funding gap in However, they are likely to be achievable towards the end of the required timescale. There is some potential evidence of diseconomies of scale within large unitary authority with some medium sized authorities being the best performers in areas such as council tax collection, cultural services and waste collection. These issues could be addressed within the blueprint for a single unitary; however are off-set by the stronger potential for economies of scale in corporate and back office and transportation functions and in dealing with the complexities of social care functions. Option 2 In the two unitary model option two would result in the creation of two medium sized unitary councils; or one medium and two small unitaries under the three unitary model. It should be noted that under three unitaries, the SE unitary is estimated to be around the fifth smallest (benchmarked CIPFA Stats 15-16) and similar in size to Slough. The five year savings potential is significantly reduced in this option and modelling suggests that the SE unitary would struggle to achieve payback of transition costs within the five year period in part due to the cost of council tax harmonisation. Option 3 The model above shows the approximate size of the unitary councils excluding the combined authority functions. It should be noted that these councils would report their share of the combined authority and include these elements in the budget and precept. The smallest current unitary (excluding Rutland and the Isles of Scilly) is Hartlepool with a NBR of around 85.5m. Considering only the functions that the unitary would be directly responsible for, the model suggests that these new councils would be significantly smaller than any existing comparable unitary and more comparable to an enhanced district council. As above, the five year savings potential is significantly reduced in this option and modelling suggests that the SE unitary would struggle to achieve pay-back of transition costs within the five year period in part due to the cost of council tax harmonisation. Buckinghamshire Council 86

46 Financial standing and risk The local government funding outlook is challenging for local authorities and there is a need to develop resilience to meet these challenges. The Local Government Finance Settlement and four-year funding settlement (i.e. funding to ) show a reduction in core spending power for district councils (linked in particular to reductions in New Homes Bonus) and all four district councils have funding gaps in later years within existing MTPs, some of which are significant. DCLG have projected a small increase in core spending power for the county (linked to the ability to raise the social care precept); however this represents a significant challenge with demand pressures on budgets expected to outstrip the funding available. The key risks include: A projected fall in core spending power for the single unitary (estimated at around 2%) with a potentially quicker fall in a north unitary, largely due to the more rapid cashterms fall in New Homes Bonus and the lower increase in Band D council tax. Achievability of reductions the ability to continue to deliver significant efficiency savings and service reductions, including those already built into existing MTPs. This could include ambitious proposals to radically change the way services are delivered. Ability to deliver greater integration of services with partners, particularly health, to deliver more efficient public services beyond the boundary of the council itself; Global economic turbulence Although the reductions in local government funding are already severe there is some risk that global issues such as Chinese economic slow-down, volatility in the eurozone, or oil prices may cause the Chancellor s growth forecasts to be disrupted. In these circumstances the government may decide to impose further cuts in local government funding; Demand led budgets Client numbers and levels of need for statutory services are notoriously difficult to control. Buckinghamshire has an increasing number of residents with a rising elderly population and an increasing birth rate, particularly in some of the more deprived wards; Cost pressures - Arising from the growth in the tax base (including projected substantial housing growth in the north) resulting in higher service demand for roads, schools, waste and other services; Managing public expectations Local tax increases are planned to be much larger than recently experienced at the same time as cuts to services will be more severe. This could stimulate some public resistance to the change programme; Changes in legislation/responsibilities The government is proposing a number of changes to the remit of local authorities, for example the move to full business rates retention and increasing the number of academy or free schools. There is inevitably a risk that the changes in responsibility are not matched by appropriate changes in funding; Brexit The potential impact of the vote to leave the European Union and any financial implications and cost pressures that could result from this across council services. A larger single unitary authority would be much more resilient than a number of smaller authorities to these financial risks as it will have greater leverage in terms of economy of scale efficiencies to meet savings challenges and reduce duplication and have a greater ability to re-prioritise resources to meet demand. The ability to approach partners and develop more integrated services, in particular with health would be greatest within this option. In addition, this option presents the greatest opportunity to optimise asset rationalisation and enable reinvestment in transformational change to deliver further revenue savings. It will also be able to take a macro view of the overall new organisational risks and adjust the level of reserves and contingencies held to the optimum level in order to meet future risks. A single unitary authority by virtue of its scale and geography can to take a much more strategic view of the impacts and opportunities in order to maximise the benefit or minimise the impact of any legislative or micro economic changes for the benefit of its residents. Under Option two the two unitary model also demonstrates the ability to leverage savings and reduce duplication. It is difficult to project where savings will be realised (for example council tax harmonisation impacts on the south unitary) and as a result the extent to which these savings are sufficient to meet the financial challenges within the five year period is uncertain. In addition a multi unitary model would be more vulnerable to funding changes including business rates (e.g. where a larger employer leaves the area). There is potential that a medium sized unitary would be able to transform services to leverage greater savings than identified, whilst maintaining 87 Buckinghamshire Council 88

47 Approach to Non-financial analysis a greater focus on local provision, with the model suggesting that the two unitary option is viable. The analysis suggests however that, in the three unitary model, the two southern unitaries may be too small and could have issues around pay-back, resilience and sustainability. This would need to be further analysed to understand demand pressures and the savings potential in more detail. The non-financial criteria used to assess the various options are contained in the following table: Criteria Sub-criteria Sub-criteria Definition Service Performance Achieving and delivering the best possible service to residents, service users and customers The number of organisations that need to work together to deliver services The level of aggregation, disaggregation, and integration required, including the proportion of population affected Under Option three the highest risk demand areas within the Children s and Adult Social Care budgets are separated from the unitary councils with the assumption that a single service is run at the combined authority level. This would leave the combined authority with significantly riskier budgets and a reliance on cooperative governance between the three funding unitary authorities. This model is untested and could result in difficult funding decisions including cross-funding into more deprived areas. This could result in financial resilience issues for the combined authority, which won t, for example, have the power to finally determine items such as the ability to increase council tax. By contrast the stronger formal governance arrangements of the three unitary authorities would be in direct control of relatively lower risk services; the size of the remaining functions is significantly smaller than any existing unitary but the risk profile would be different. As above, the analysis suggests that the two southern unitaries may be too small and could be have issues around pay-back, resilience and sustainability. Further work would be needed to confirm the viability of this option. Democratic leadership & accountability Local engagement & decision making Sustainability Service standards and value for money Democratic participation and accountability Ability to influence the decision making process Delivery of services that are responsive to local needs Coterminosity with partners Economic Growth The potential for change in volume, range, frequency and characteristics of services delivered. Clear understanding by residents, business and elected members the democratic pathway Whether individuals, families and communities have clarity about who is representing them and where to go for support and advice. Flexibility to move resources to where they are needed most Maintaining and / or creating natural communities. The degree of coterminosity with other parts of the public sector The number of organisations that need to work together to deliver services The ability to facilitate strategic planning (planning and delivering services across organisations) Improving Gross Value Added (GVA) Ability to improve economic planning with partners Ability to influence key policy areas such as housing, transport, planning, rate reliefs etc. Skills and capacity The impacts on public sector skills and capacity. The ability to influence skills to support business growth Engagement of supply chain (business and supply chain) Local and national business and supply chain engaged in innovation and creative service delivery 89 Buckinghamshire Council 90

48 15 Outcomes from the assessment of options Financial analysis The financial analysis resulted in the four options being awarded a rank of 1 3, with 1 representing the highest level of savings and 3 being the lowest. The following table shows the results of this ranking: Rank Option Reasons 1 Single Authority 2 Two Authorities Three Authorities Greatest level of annual revenue savings ( 18.2m) for a similar total investment cost. As above show over 5 years 2nd highest level of annual revenue savings ( 8.1m) for an investment of 14.3m Savings of 2.9m (from an investment 7.8m) are higher than the combined authority option, however there is a much greater financial risk of issues from the disaggregation of social care services. 3 Three Authorities + Combined Authority Although the lowest level of savings ( 1.7m) for reasonable high investment cost 9.3m, the risk of disaggregation of social care expenditure is much lower In conclusion, option one presents the greatest level of ongoing savings. These savings are a conservative estimate of what could be achievable as the business case focusses on the priority transformation areas in moving towards the unitary council model. Once all services are brought together there will be additional savings opportunities that can be gained from economies of scale, adoption of best and optimum practices in service delivery, innovation and transformational investment. A corporate landlord review of the aggregated property portfolio will enable the rationalisation of property holdings by enabling transformational investment to generate further revenue savings. The greater the number of unitary authorities, the less opportunity there is to realise significant savings. A single unitary authority will take a strategic approach to service delivery and development across the whole of Buckinghamshire and in doing so, be better placed to manage any financial risks, as well as take full advantage of financial opportunities that may arise. The demand led services of Adult and Children s Social Care represent by far the greatest service risk amongst any of the services currently undertaken by the districts and the county council. Any attempt to disaggregate these services would represent a significant financial risk. Although the combined authority option mitigates this particular risk, the limited level of organisational consolidation severely limits the savings opportunities. 91 Buckinghamshire Council 92

49 Non- financial analysis For our non-financial analysis we have considered a wide range of criteria based on the evidential requirements of the Department for Communities and Local Government, and have sought to learn from similar studies that have been undertaken elsewhere within the country. Option Option One: Single Service Performance Democratic Leadership & Accountability Local engagement & decision making Economic Growth Skills & Capacity The table below sets out the relative rankings that our appraisal has determined for these criteria, from 1-3 (one being the highest). The sustainability section represents one rank overall and all criteria have been equally weighted: Sustainability Engagement of supply chain (business and supply chain) Coterminosity with partners (partnership working) Average sustainabilty score Total score Non- Financial Rank Option Three: Three plus a Combined Authority This option was the second highest ranking. With robust governance arrangements in place, a combined authority would establish strong leadership and accountability for services delivered within this body. It is likely that service performance, particularly for vulnerable residents would remain consistent and present opportunities for improvement. However a strong focus on the allocation of social care funding is critical to ensure the combined authority is able to meet financial shocks based on a spike in demand. Option Two: Multiple Option Three: Combined Authority Option All models of reorganisation present benefits and challenges, on balance, based on the available evidence option one, a single unitary model is the preferred option for Buckinghamshire. 1 - high scoring, 2- medium scoring, 3 - low scoring Option One: One This option has been ranked highest in the overall scoring and reflects an option that provides greatest overall scope for performance improvement, specifically in relation to maintaining and improving performance to meet the needs of our vulnerable residents. It enables visibility of leadership and accountability for all stakeholders and offers enhanced opportunities to working with partners. Scalable opportunities for economic growth by bring together spatial planning is particularly attractive in this model. Joined up planning of health, social care housing and leisure will support ongoing service performance but also commit focus on preventive services to keep our residents healthy; reducing the demands on intervention services. Option Two: Multiple This was consistently the lowest ranked option. The primary drawback is the ability to maintain and improve service performance, specifically in relation to vulnerable residents, whilst disaggregating the service provision across the Buckinghamshire geography. The ability to overcome financial shocks due to a spike in demand will be challenging in this model. Localism and the local agenda were strongest in this option. Although smaller scale does not always represent local decisions, the geography of Buckinghamshire and its historical close links with communities would mean that local decision making increases its short term and long term success. 93 Buckinghamshire Council 94

50 16 Appendix Conclusion One: Summary of key findings by evaluation criteria sets out a visual representation of the overall benefits, challenges and mitigating actions against the non-financial analysis. This options appraisal was developed in order to explore and appraise the options for reorganising local government in Buckinghamshire. It has presented an estimate of financial costs and savings and has considered the non-financial benefits and limitations of each option. The appraisal has been developed to enable Buckinghamshire elected members and central government to make an informed decision on the preferred option, which will be further developed in a full business case. There remains consensus across all five principal local authorities within Buckinghamshire that the existing two tier structure of local government is not best equipped to address the current and future needs of the area, and that reorganisation of public services is necessary to continue to deliver high quality outcomes to residents and businesses. To date it has not been possible to achieve a consensus between the County Council and the district councils on the preferred outcome of any reorganisation. However all five councils committed to mutual sharing of data and information, which has supported the development of this appraisal. The options appraisal concludes that all models of reorganisation can deliver financial and non-financial benefits; moreover each model of reorganisation can secure economic growth and positive outcomes for residents, business and partners. The question is which model will bring greatest opportunity and equitable outcomes to residents and businesses based on the evaluation criteria? In conclusion, the preferred option is for a new single unitary authority for Buckinghamshire which delivers the greatest possible level of financial savings, reduces complexity and provides a single point of accountability to the public and partners. The one unitary model allows the new authority to be an active participant in wider public service reform within and beyond the county and provides the opportunity to design and implement at scale a comprehensive offer to communities and local councils. It is important to recognise that option one and option three have a number of strong similarities; they both entail a strategic countywide body with the potential for strong democratic leadership and accountability. However there are key differences in terms of where the accountability falls in terms of decision making. A single unitary offers a single point of accountability in a way that a combined authority may not be able to; it is able to influence at a regional and national level and be accountable at a local delivery level. Meeting the localism agenda and engaging with residents to influence decision making is sound under option two; the Buckinghamshire geography lends itself well to differentiation of priorities between the north and south of Buckinghamshire. However, it is likely there will be differences in service performance and challenges when faced with unexpected spikes in demand, specifically for safeguarding and services for vulnerable residents. The recommendation of this appraisal, taking into consideration the financial and non-financial benefits, challenges and mitigating actions is that a new single unitary council for Buckinghamshire can rise to these challenges, building on substantial historic and existing positive experience within the county. A new, single unitary council is achievable, low risk, will save money, and increase local accountability. Buckinghamshire Council 96

51 Service performance Model Benefits Challenges Mitigation Appendix 1 Summary of key findings by evaluation criteria Option 1 One Ability to deliver place services holistically and at scale, bringing together spatial planning, infrastructure, transport and developing a single strategic plan for Buckinghamshire to support strategic alliance work. Enhancement of countywide social care and safeguarding services through closer connection with related services such as housing, leisure and benefits and increased ability to match resources with need. Creates a robust platform for further health and social care integration, coterminous with health partners. Greater financial scale and savings bring an opportunity to think and invest over the longer term in preventative services. Opportunity to ensure equity of service standards across Buckinghamshire and to harmonise service performance at the level of the best, appropriate to local needs. A single unitary for Buckinghamshire could be perceived as too large and inflexible to deliver services that respond to the distinctive needs of different communities. Risk of disruption to highperforming district services and the potential loss of skills and knowledge due to the requirement for consolidation. A county unitary would be required to maintain a focus on the requirements of different parts of the county and ensure that commissioning and service delivery arrangements are sufficiently flexible to respond to these. Careful, thorough and inclusive transition planning which would seek to identify and protect the strengths of all predecessor organisations Option 2 Multiple Unitaries Ability to deliver place services holistically albeit over multiple smaller footprints. Greater freedom and flexibility than a single unitary to prioritise, commission and deliver services that are responsive to the needs of smaller areas. Greater scope to protect and enhance existing patterns of shared services and joint working across district councils. oint decision-making in relation to economic growth, infrastructure and housing could become challenging in the absence of a formal partnership vehicle, and sub-regional transport and infrastructure work with the Strategic Alliance could be jeopardised. The process of disaggregating social care and safeguarding services across two or more new organisations would create significant complexity and cost and potentially also create additional risk to service users. A structure for joint decisions between new unitary authorities and liaison with partners would be required. If not a combined authority, then this could be a formal joint committee or other partnership structure. Any business case for this option will be required to demonstrate that the benefits of smaller sovereign organisations and democratic units outweigh the cost and complexity of disaggregating social care and safeguarding services. Service outcomes that require joint working with partners such as health and police could be at risk due to increased complexity of partnership arrangements. Smaller unitary authorities may struggle to maintain financial resilience and therefore service quality. Buckinghamshire Council 98

52 Model Benefits Challenges Mitigation Model Benefits Challenges Mitigation Option 3 Three Unitaries with a Combined Authority Ability for a combined authority to deliver place services holistically and at scale, bringing together spatial planning, infrastructure, transport and developing a single strategic plan for Buckinghamshire to support strategic alliance work. A combined authority offers the possibility of continuing to deliver social care and safeguarding services over a county-wide footprint. authorities would retain substantial sovereignty and ability to respond flexibly to local needs. A combined authority would need to be robustly governed in order to balance potentially conflicting interests and take effective joint decisions on matters that concern multiple organisations including resource allocation for services such as social care. There is currently no precedent for delivering disaggregated County services via a combined authority. This could entail a lengthy and difficult implementation and learning process with risks to service quality in the transition period. This option could be perceived by the public as recreating the status quo. Building upon lessons learned from previous combined authority implementation processes will enable the smoother transition to best practice although not for social care services which remain untested. Introduction of an operating framework that plans and coordinates at a strategic level but delivers locally. Option 2 Multiple Unitaries Clarified accountability for local authority services compared with the status quo, albeit within multiple smaller areas. More flexible and greater freedom and flexibility than a single unitary to prioritise, commission and deliver services that are responsive to the needs of smaller areas. There would be no overall point of leadership or accountability for local authority services within Buckinghamshire. There would be no clear means to achieve effective joint decision-making with appropriate democratic engagement. New unitary authorities would be less able to speak with a single voice and may struggle to liaise and negotiate effectively with strategic partners. Historical precedents suggest that a devolution deal would be less likely in the absence of a combined authority or county unitary. A structure for joint decisions between new unitary authorities and liaison with partners would be required. If not a combined authority, then this could be a formal joint committee or other partnership structure. This may however present challenges for public accountability as it would need equivalent arrangements for ensuring that local councillors could scrutinise decisions on shared services or through other sub-national arrangements. Democratic Leadership & Accountability Model Benefits Challenges Mitigation Option 1 One A single point of accountability and responsibility for the quality of all local authority services within Buckinghamshire, supported by a single executive function. Decision-making would be significantly more simple and quicker than the status quo. The ability for Buckinghamshire to speak with a single voice on the regional and national stage. Greater clarity from the perspective of partners, suppliers, neighbouring areas and central government. A countywide unitary might risk being perceived as too large to provide democratic leadership and accountability to smaller communities. Reductions in the overall numbers of elected representatives within the County area would need to be carefully balanced to ensure that sufficient political capacity remains to effectively represent all areas. A single unitary would need to embrace the principle of subsidiarity and ensure that decisions are taken as close as possible to the communities affected. Option 3 - Three Unitaries with a Combined Authority Scope for clarified accountability for local authority services depending upon how a combined authority is constituted and governed. A well-governed combined authority could offer a route to effective joined-up decision making at scale and provide strong leadership on a regional and national stage. There would be an opportunity to consider the suitability of a directly elected mayor for Buckinghamshire In practice, a combined authority may struggle to effectively balance conflicting interests across member organisations and achieve effective joint decision-making, especially in the absence of a single point of accountability such as a mayor. Particular challenges would be likely to arise from health and social care services, where need is unlikely to be evenly distributed across member organisations, and decisions about resource allocation would be required to reflect this. Care would be required to ensure that decisions taken by a combined authority were subject to appropriate democratic accountability and scrutiny, especially in delivering statutory services on behalf of member authorities. The constitution and governance of a combined authority would need to be very carefully considered, with sufficient flexibility built in to enable learning and adaptation over time. Some lessons are available from existing combined authorities, but no precedent exists for a combined authority delivering social care services that have been disaggregated from a predecessor authority. 99 Buckinghamshire Council 100

53 Local Engagement & Decision Making Model Benefits Challenges Mitigation Option 1 One Option 2 - Multiple Unitaries Option 3 - Three Unitaries with a Combined Authority Greater scale and financial capacity may enable the development of a more comprehensive offer of devolution to localities and local councils Smaller democratic units may find it easier to maintain a closer fit to natural communities, a better understanding of their distinctive needs and greater freedom to respond appropriately. As for option two Ensuring appropriate engagement in decisionmaking and democratic representation at a local level will be a key challenge Developing an approach to localism that is sufficiently flexible to deal with wide variations in local context, capability and capacity. To different extents, new unitary authorities created under this option would still cover large areas and populations and would therefore still require enhanced approaches to localism. New unitary authorities would be required to devolve up to a combined authority whilst also devolving down to local councils and or areas boards. The resulting arrangements could risk becoming complex and inconsistent. A new unitary authority would have an opportunity to design and implement at scale a comprehensive offer to communities and local councils. New unitary authorities would have the opportunity develop approaches to local engagement empowerment that are appropriate to their respective circumstances. As for option two, although a combined authority would also provide the opportunity to establishing a voice for local representatives at a countywide level. Sustainability Model Benefits Challenges Mitigation Option 1 One A unitary model of local government delivered at county scale will provide local leaders with access to all of the tools required to support local businesses and sustainable economic growth for example greater control and a single strategic plan for spatial planning, regeneration, infrastructure, transport and housing supply. A single unitary would be better placed to market Buckinghamshire to potential investors, providing a single point of contact and faster decision timescales compared with the status quo. A single unitary would be better able to redirect resources and maintain financial resilience in response to unexpected events such as civil emergencies. A larger organisation may find it easier to recruit and retain a high-quality workforce and would enable the retention of specialist skills and advisors. The single unitary model provides the best match for the areas served by strategic partners such as the CCG, the LEP and police. Ensuring that smaller local businesses and third sector providers are able to form part of the supply chain to local public services. Ensuring that a strategic approach to commissioning and social value is developed that gives smaller providers equitable access to commercial opportunities. Option 2 - Multiple Unitaries The unitary model of local government will enable greater influence over the local economies of multiple smaller areas and may enable greater responsiveness to local economic specialisms. Smaller organisations will be able to put in place more flexibly commissioning arrangements enabling easier access to opportunities for smaller local providers. Joint decisions will inevitably be required on issues relating to economic growth and infrastructure. If these cannot be taken effectively the effects will be felt as a constraint on economic growth and service outcomes for all organisations. Multiple organisations would find it more difficult to present a unified offer to potential investors. Smaller unitary authorities will be less able to maintain financial resilience in the face of unexpected events or in response to significant escalations in service demand. Joint working between unitary authorities via a joint committee or similar might enable an improved partnership and economic development offer. Smaller unitary organisations may find it less easy to attract and retain staff especially to senior roles such as directors of social care. The requirement to liaise with multiple unitary authorities will create additional complexity and demands on resources for partner organisations. 101 Buckinghamshire Council 102

54 Model Benefits Challenges Mitigation Option 3 - Three Unitaries with a Combined Authority A combined authority offers the potential for strategic oversight of local economic growth and infrastructure improvement and a joined-up approach to marketing the area to potential investors. It could also provide a mechanism for equalisation of resources and need across member authorities to support financial resilience and sustainability. A combined authority would need to be well-governed in order to achieve effective and accountable joint decisionmaking and to balance competing interests and demands on resources. The constitution and governance of a combined authority would need to be very carefully considered, with sufficient flexibility built in to enable learning and adaptation over time. Arrangements could be put in place to enable partner representation on a combined authority and to ensure that liaison and negotiation continue on a countywide basis. 103