Broxtowe councillors ‘say no’ to most of the borough merging with the city under Local Government Reorganisation plans

Broxtowe Council met in a full council meeting on October 15 where its leader, Milan Radulovic (Brox All) tabled a motion to object to Nottingham City Council’s fresh new council re-shaping option which focuses on, what some councillors have called, an ‘expanded city’.

The re-jig of Nottinghamshire’s councils follows the Labour Government’s English Devolution White Paper back in December 2024 which would see two-tier structures – where responsibilities are split between an upper county council and district and borough councils – scrapped to create fewer new unitary authorities.

This two-tier model is seen across Nottinghamshire while the city council is a unitary authority responsible for all services in the city boundary.

Various options for restructuring Nottinghamshire’s nine authorities have been looked at by leaders since early 2025 but two core options were most recently debated.

One combines Nottingham, Broxtowe and Gedling and the other combines Nottingham, Broxtowe and Rushcliffe with a second unitary covering the rest of the county in both options.

In September, Nottinghamshire Council backed the Nottingham, Broxtowe and Gedling option but in the meantime the city council hinted some form of city boundary expansion could be a third viable option.

A new report released this week showing the city council’s most recent plan sees parts of Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe joining with the city and the remaining parts left in the county.

According to the plan’s map, it would see the majority of Broxtowe being included in a city merger, with the northern part – which geographically appears to include Brinsley, Eastwood and Greasley – contained in the county.

Leading the motion, Coun Radulovic called on Broxtowe councillors to ‘say no' to this new re-shaping model, to write to the city council and Secretary of State regarding the option being put forward without a ‘needs-based cost assessment’ and to write to Broxtowe’s two MPs about concerns.

He also voiced worries of council tax increases and poorer services under the current proposals.

He said there had been ‘no formal engagement’ with district and borough councils, partner agencies and residents outside of the city boundary on the plan.

Echoing previous comments made by borough councillors neighbouring the city boundary, Coun Teresa Cullen (Brox All) called the proposals a ‘land grab’, saying: “It’s nothing about reorganising local government and service delivery, it’s about carving up, taking in areas around the city to make an expanded city unitary.

“The city council wants our community centres, our car parks, our assets to sell off to pay off the debts.”

Speaking on the motion’s concerns for a ‘needs-based cost assessment' being needed when assessing the city council’s fresh re-shaping option, Coun Peter Bales (Lab) noted that a report had been released this week showing this, adding: “To have an informed debate this should be debated on the November 26 meeting because we would have had a chance to actually read that document.”

Coun Bales said there was ‘a lot of hyperbole’ and ‘scaremongering’ from councillors across the city and county on council re-shaping.

He said: “We know there’s areas of the city where people have huge needs, so are we saying by ignoring them that’s a reflection on us as a society?

“Successive Governments, and I include the current Government, perhaps aren’t doing what they should to do help those in greatest need in society – LGR will be helping people.”

Coun Greg Marshall (Brox Alliance), council deputy leader, said the report Coun Bales was referring to was one conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), released by the city council, comparing the reorganisation options.

He said: “In that report, even PwC, commissioned by the city council, couldn’t bring themselves to say anything other than these words: That all the options are marginal ‘but would require mitigations as part of implementation’ – that is a direct quote.

“It goes on to say, and this is a direct quote that, ‘more detailed work will be required’ to develop the financial case’.

"How can you make a judgement on something, when you don’t know what the financial case is?”

According to the city council, this work is already being done as part of collaborative work on all options, in which Broxtowe Council is a part of.

Coun Marshall said the report concluded the city council’s new option has “’higher transition costs’ than the other existing options, that ‘there may be additional financial complexities in the future’ and said Broxtowe Council will write to MPs and ministers to ‘pause’ the re-shaping process.

According to the report, the city council’s new plan would bring the same level of benefit in the long-run but the transition costs could be £3m more, stating the existing two core options on the table are ‘more financially efficient’.

In a statement to the local democracy reporting service, Coun Neghat Khan (Lab), city council leader, said: “Nottingham has stayed out of the misinformation and scaremongering by other councils, but this continued narrative is unhelpful and misleading.”

She says all council leaders and chief executives have been ‘actively involved’ in reorganisation discussions, adding: “It was Broxtowe Council themselves who blocked the opportunity for their residents to have a say on the boundary review proposal.

"Nottingham City Council formally requested that the boundary option be included in the joint public engagement, but this was rejected by other councils.”

The leader said the term ‘land grab’ was an ‘attempt to mislead the public’, emphasising that existing authorities will ‘cease to exist’, replaced by completely new authorities, with any assets merged into two new authorities.

She said: “Our focus is on sensible geography and local identity, not on cherry-picking assets.

“We are pulling together a proposal designed to overcome the limitations of outdated 1997 boundaries, which fail to reflect the economic and social reality of the Nottingham conurbation.

"Our focus is on people and ensuring future organisations offer the greatest potential for long-term sustainability, better service delivery and enhanced economic growth for the entire county and we’ve shared that rationale in more detail previously.

“We call on neighbouring politicians to prioritise a mature, evidence-based discussion that focuses on what is best for the people of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, rather than resorting to political mischaracterisation.”

Coun Radulovic’s motion was backed with 32 councillors voting in favour and four abstentions.