By Local Democracy Reporter Simon Finlay
The next step in the overhaul of local government in Kent was taken today with the start of a massive consultation exercise.
Stakeholders are to be invited to provide feedback on the five different options put forward by the county’s 14 councils.
Under local government reorganisation (LGR), announced in late 2024 by the then Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, all of Kent’s councils will effectively abolish themselves and be replaced by a much smaller number of large unitary authorities.
The Labour government aims to streamline local government and make it more efficient as well as save money.
Ministers have received a total of 52 submissions from local leaders in 14 regions, including Kent, which they say “show plans to simplify the needless duplication and reduce bureaucracy, and they have today been put forward for local people, organisations, and businesses to have their say”.
‘Latest step’
A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) statement said: “This is the latest step in our plans to reorganise local government which will end the current wasteful two-tier system and replace it with stronger unitary councils that can deliver for local people.”
The MHCLG will seek the views of interested parties, such as the public sector, unions and businesses, before the secretary of state moves the process onto the next stage.
The local government minister, Alison McGovern, will also welcome feedback from residents as well as local community associations, the voluntary sector and town and parish councils. The deadline is March 28.
In a letter to local authorities, the minister wrote: “Our timetable is ambitious, but it is the right thing to do. Local government reorganisation will simplify local government and deliver councils who are equipped to drive economic growth, improve local public services, and lead and empower their communities.”
Announcing the consultation, Ms McGovern added: “Unitary councils provide clarity for residents and are more effective.
“That’s why we’re carrying out the biggest change to local government in a generation, and I would encourage local people and businesses to share their views in shaping the future of their area.”
Options
Option one: Known as 3a, this would consist of three unitaries councils consisting of Dartford, Gravesham, Medway and Swale in the north; Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Malling, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells in the west and Ashford, Canterbury, Thanet, Dover and Folkestone and Hythe in the east.
Option two: Referred to as 4b, four unitary councils consisting of Dartford, Gravesham and Medway in the north; Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Malling, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells in the west; Swale, Ashford and Folkestone and Hythe in the middle of Kent and Canterbury, Thanet and Dover in the east.
Option three: KCC announced its intention to explore the case for a single unitary council, known as 1a, covering Kent and Medway supplemented with three area assemblies of Dartford, Gravesham, Medway and Swale in the north; Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Malling, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells in the west and Ashford, Canterbury, Thanet, Dover and Folkestone and Hythe in the east.
Option four: Called 4d, Medway Council is proposing a four-unitary model with changes to existing council boundaries, consisting of parts of Dartford, Gravesham, Medway and Swale in the north; the remaining part of Dartford, Gravesham, Medway, with Sevenoaks, Tunbridge Wells, and parts of Tonbridge and Malling in the west; Maidstone, Ashford with the remaining parts of Tonbridge and Malling, Swale, and part of Folkestone and Hythe; and Canterbury, Thanet, Dover with the remaining parts of Swale and Folkestone and Hythe in the east.
Option five: Known as 5a, Gravesham Borough Council and Dartford Borough Council have developed a proposal for a five-unitary model with boundary changes, consisting of Dartford, Gravesham, parts of Medway west of the River Medway, and Swanley in the north; Sevenoaks, Tonbridge & Malling, Tunbridge Wells, and Maidstone (excluding Swanley) in the west; the remainder of Medway with the western part of Swale (Sittingbourne area) in the middle; the rest of Swale (Faversham area) combined with Canterbury and Thanet; and finally, Ashford, Folkestone & Hythe, and Dover in the east.
Learn more and take part in the government’s consultation here.
The deadline for responses is 11.59pm on Thursday 26 March.
There is lots of background information, including the detailed explanations for each option, at KentCouncilLeaders.org.uk/lgr-consultation.
More misdirection from London and the suits.
Nobody in any of the political parties or the City has a clue how to improve Britain’s fortunes or position. They’re all just interested in acquiring as much of the finite pie as possible. After being the heart of 3 separate empires during the previous nine centuries, all the present generations can do is earnestly shuffle the domestic pack. It’s just an expensive, unnecessary distraction.
I think the opening says it all: option 1 is labelled “3a” and option 3 is labelled “1a” — council obfuscation right from the start. It would clearly be too straightforward to have option 1 simply called option 1.
Thanet, Canterbury and Dover have previously attempted shared services, and it proved extremely difficult to reach agreement, with little evidence of meaningful cost reductions. Delivering a more efficient service for local residents would require a strong and resolute leader.
I would join Canterbury, Thanet, Dover and Folkestone Councils to give one authority the power over a continual stretch of coastline.
Having said that, all the options result in TDC being abolished so it’s a win-win for local residents regardless of which option is chosen.
I also think a Kent Coastal Unitary area was the obvious thing to do. Proper coastal focus on all our shared challenges and opportunities.
Here we have a variety of nonsensical options, who on earth would know which one will work best? I’d imagine the cost of merging services and staff will be eye watering but I do agree it will be good to see the end of TDC.
No, the next thing is not consultation, who and what are “stakeholders “?
What will happen is everyone grinding their own axe.Government is about taking decisions the so called “hard choices”, get on and do it.Say as from 2028, Kent will be divided into no more than 3 Unitaries ,each to be no less than 500,000 in population each.This means no Super KCC, no minute unviable East Kent, and certainly no TDC in any shape or form.
As for the declinist rubbish about empire, it always amazes me that the ones who talk down the country,constantly,are those waving Chinese made union flags and sticking them on lampposts.
This country is still great and capable of great things, if we but the courage to think long term.We may have been led by noodles in the past, and are in danger of being ransacked by complete knuckleheads,who cannot run KCC without turning it into a pantomime, but if we hold fast we can do better, much better.
I still want to know who decided we needed to embark on this pointless, expensive and almost infinitely time consuming exercise (I worked through a local government reorganisation and believe me the losers were voters whose services were neglected while politicians and officers manoeuvred for position.)
Was it in the Labour Party manifesto and I missed it?
We are now to be consulted on how it is effected – we were never consulted (or was I asleep?) on whether we wanted to do it in the first place.
The case for unitary authorities is a strong one. Local councils are supposed to sweep the roads but County councils look after road drains. Potholes and parking run by different councils is a nonsense. The worry here is that Canterbury is a world famous city that will inevitably use a lot of any unitary resources. Also, despite the sneering at TDC, they have ensured 300 new COUNCIL homes with many more in the pipeline. Any unitary authority needs to guarantee these and expand this sort of programme. Big changes but can be a real step forward – fingers crossed!
I would very much hope that any new Unitary Authority would have much bolder ambitions which benefit ALL residents of their new area rather than just borrowing tens of millions to benefit a very small number of people in social housing (which, in a Unitary Authority people on the waiting list of other local Councils may benefit from rather than current Thanet residents)
Keith Veness – snearing at TDC for 300 council homes and more in pipeline! At what cost to us rate payers. Please do not tell me they are self funding. Labour Party at all levels hopeless with financial matters. Look at history!
I think the evidence of poor competence at TDC is well made, and is hardly sneering. Let’s remember 1.5m of residents money on eye watering expensive exits that would put investment banking settlements to shame.
Residents are tired of the “its TDC its RTC its KCCs” job and I see no benefit whatsoever to Thanet Residents of the current set up and we seem to be viewed as irritants rather than customers.
Dover DC and Medway Unitary seem far better run and delivered.
Or even, more recently, almost £800,000 wasted this year in project costs for projects that didn’t actually go anywhere like the fairytale ferries. This is financial incompetence and this money could have been spent on local services. Don’t believe a word of it when TDC Councillors tell you there isn’t any money.
Surely things can only get better.
Good thing to do but it depends on who actually ends up running it. It will need some competence not has been wasters. Will we have town councils? All I think is big rate rises to pay for it.
Spot on Joe – if this is just another round of musical chairs then the good people will get out with a payoff and the people who failed us first time round will be there to do it again.
Realistically, why would smart, high flying managers want to come to a coastal cul-de-sac – it’s not a career stepping stone, it doesn’t offer bright lights and excitement and the politicians are the same old bunch of tired, self serving dross that have been around far too long?
It’s the sleepy ones, with limited ambition; the ones whose experience extends as far as Canterbury or Dover who come here to pass their days to retirement
No Tony, the current system is pointless and expensive and all that is proposed is to carry out what should have happened in 1968, but wasn’t because of the rural lobby being afraid of being overreacted by urban areas, hence District councils that have favoured rural areas over planning and provision of services, leaving many urban areas with long term deprivation.