Issue - meetings

The Council is invited to note and comment on the options presented in the Local Government Reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. The Council is also to note the criteria and process established by Government and that the Secretary of State will be the end decision maker. The Council is invited to record its support for one or none of the options presented in order to inform the decision to be taken by Cabinet on 24th November 2025.

The Council discussed the Local Government Reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Report at its extraordinary meeting on 19th November 2025. 

Before the debate began, the Council were advised verbally by Councillor B S Chapman that St Neots Town Council (SNTC) would be supporting Option C. 

Members heard from the Executive Leader, Councillor S J Conboy, that it was important to make an evidence-based decision based upon facts rather than political concerns and that only one Option should be submitted to the Government. She also reminded members that this was an opportunity to vote tactically as only submitted options could be considered by the Secretary of State and this was an opportunity to allow the fullest submission of options for consideration. 

Councillor S Bywater addressed the Council and gave thanks to officers for their hard work and dedication to the papers especially when there is uncertainty over how their own futures will be affected by the decision. He continued that it was important that the debate and decision made was made delivered the best outcome for both Huntingdonshire residents, and the residents of the County as a whole. Councillor Bywater expressed his belief that Option E would create an effective, sustainable and fair option for all. He noted that the current growth within neighbouring authorities was already felt by rural communities bordering those areas and that the forecasted growth would exasperate this situation. He felt that by supporting Option E a strategic and long-term plan for growth would be developed. Councillor Bywater furthermore expressed his lack of support for Option D expressing concern that the split of Huntingdonshire proposed by the Option would simply be to allow for a housing expansion zone from a Council who had run out of room to grow further. In his opinion this would be an unfair burden which would fail residents and burden communities. He also expressed concern about the impact Local Government Reform (LGR) would have upon education and noted that the impact upon schools and Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision had barely been addressed with minimal engagement with the Schools Forum to date. Councillor Bywater observed that Education would be one of the most critical services delivered by the new Unitary Authority (UA) and felt that Option E provided the most stability for the education provision to residents for the future. Councillor Bywater expressed further concern about the pace of the LGR process and noted that this should not be driven by national politics but rather local need. He concluded that residents deserved an option which suits their needs and gives the strongest protection for the future, he felt that this would be Option E. 

The Council was then addressed by Councillor T Alban, who observed that there may be varying merits across all the presented options with the exception of Option D, which would see parts of the District become part of a Greater Peterborough. He expressed concern that the resulting UA would be dominated by Peterborough and be city centric, not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44

The Group is invited to note and comment on the options presented in the Local Government Reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. The Group is also to note the criteria and process established by Government and that the Secretary of State will be the end decision maker.  

Executive Councillor: S J Conboy

By means of a report by the Chief Executive (a copy of which was appended in the Minute Book), the Local Government Reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Report was presented to the Group.

Following an enquiry from Councillor Chapman, it was clarified that Huntingdonshire District Council (HDC) would be submitting one proposal to the Government. There had been some discussion as to whether neighbouring Councils would be submitting multiple preferences, however it was established that this was no longer the case. In response to a further question on the process from Councillor Gardener, it was clarified that each Council within the region would submit their preferred outcome option and that this would then be presented forwards on behalf of the region. 

It was clarified to the Group following a query from Councillor Alban, that the Cabinet recommendations from F onwards referenced the action taken in recommendation E rather than the Business Case Option E. 

Following an observation from Councillor Pickering on the differences between Options C and E, and the resulting creation of 2 or 3 new unitary authorities (UAs), the Group were assured that the current advice was to put forward one preferred option only or risk not having an option on the table. It was clarified that there would be opportunity for the Secretary of State to adjust submitted options but not to suggest entirely new business cases, it was also noted that a statutory consultation would be held following the option submission and that HDC would be able to submit further information at this point as a statutory consultee. The Group heard that the legislation being used for the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process was fully tested and is considered robust by Government.

In answer to a question from Councillor Bywater, the Group heard that attention had initially been focussed on Option C and that the dataset for this had also been used when the addition of Options D and E were requested by Peterborough City Council (PCC). It was understood that the proposed split of Huntingdonshire in Option D had been hinted at in an open letter written by the two Peterborough Members of Parliament however any further detail on the reasoning for this would need to be requested from partners. This proposal was not one that HDC had put forward. It was clarified that scoring criteria had been awarded against the criteria set by the Government to allow for a best judgement approach to be taken.

The Group heard from Local Partnerships colleagues, who, in response to a question from Councillor Hassall, acknowledged that Option E implied a reoccurring financial pressure of £1m however, when the overall unitary budget was taken into consideration this would be a minimal figure. It was noted that in comparison, Option C had a recurring net saving of £3m however it was also noted that these pressures would need to be taken into account in line with the larger budgets at play and the many benefits that the larger UAs  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4