New LGR 'third option' could see Eastwood avoid Nottingham city switch

Coun Neghat Khan (Lab), has outlined proposals that differ to what is currently being considered, in that whole boroughs would not become part of the city, just parts of them.

And it could be good news for Eastwood, Greasley and Brinsley whose residents have repeatedly said they do not want to become part of Nottingham city.

But Kimberley would still remain part of the plans under the new propsals.

This was confirmed in a comment by Broxtowe Alliance councillors – who control Broxtowe Council – on your Advertiser’s Facebook page.

They said: “The new boundary suggested by the city leader still includes Kimberley but excludes Eastwood, Greasley, Brinsley - total money/land grab by the city.”

And Coun Milan Radulovic (Brox All), Broxtowe Council leader, has dismissed the idea as ‘nonsense’ and said he would not be voting for any proposals that would see any part of Broxtowe become part of the city.

Under the Government’s LGR, proposals, all nine existing local authorities in Nottinghamshire would be abolished, to create new unitary councils with a higher population of residents.

It is being proposed that two new unitary councils should be created for Nottingham and Nottinghamshire to replace the current nine.

Two core options that are currently out for public consultation at lgrnotts.org are as follows:

A new unitary authority combining Nottingham, Broxtowe, and Gedling, with a second new unitary authority for the rest of Nottinghamshire; Mansfield, Ashfield, Newark & Sherwood, Bassetlaw and Rushcliffe – this is known as 1b.

A new unitary authority combining Nottingham, Broxtowe, and Rushcliffe, with a second new unitary authority for the rest of Nottinghamshire; Mansfield, Ashfield, Newark & Sherwood, Bassetlaw and Gedling – this is known as 1e.

A third option that was being mooted earlier this year was the city expanding to include five areas – West Bridgford, Beeston, Hucknall, Arnold and Carlton.

The controversial proposals have caused deadlock among the county’s councils with none able to all agree on a way forward.

But speaking to the BBC, Coun Khan says the city council is proposing a new third option where the city boundary expands into parts of Rushcliffe, Gedling and Broxtowe.

According to the BBC, Coun Khan’s new proposals would see Broxtowe divided up to put the likes of Kimberley, Beeston, Toton, Bramcote, Stapleford and Nuthall in the city – but Eastwood remaining out of it.

In Gedling, Carlton, Arnold and Burton Joyce would form part of the city, while Rushcliffe would be halved to include West Bridgford, Ruddington, Keyworth, East Leake and Sutton Bonington within the city area.

Remaining parts of the districts would join with another authority made up of Mansfield, Ashfield, Newark & Sherwood, and Bassetlaw.

Coun Khan said: “How do you decide between two options with no significant differences?

My view is that you don’t.

"The reality is that the current city boundaries – set in 1997 – doesn’t reflect the ‘real’ Nottingham.

"We know that Nottingham has changed and it’s time we set a boundary that reflects where we are now.

“Options 1b and 1e, whilst workable, split the Nottingham conurbation, fail to include its surrounding suburbs and fail to address the city and wider county’s needs for the future.

“None of the current councils will exist – new councils will come in their place – so, this isn’t about the city council land-grabbing.

"This is about long-term sustainability, and a thriving city supports the whole county, not just the city.”

Speaking to the BBC, she added: “For me, a boundary review is the best option.

"A lot of people come to the city for work reasons and nights out but don't pay for the services – I don't think it's fair.

"I have people who think the boundary review is the right thing to do but they don't think it can happen in the timeframe.

"I'm not afraid to stand alone on something that I strongly believe can be done."

But Coun Radulovic said: “I think it’s just a nonsense, it’s just a mish-mash of adding areas in there they (the city council) think will raise their council tax levels so they can pay off all their debts and be financially stable.

"It’s not based on common sense, nor on service delivery so this option is still absolutely a no-go for me.

"This should be about the key issue for us which is service delivery, now and in the future, be that adult social services, children’s services, things like SEND, as well as education, highways, how we deal with planning and the environment and it’s nothing to do with that.

"It’s just short-termism from a financial perspective and I don’t think it will have any tract whatsoever with the public or the Government.”