Opposition councillors are yet to be convinced by plans to scrap Warwickshire's six major councils to form a new authority by 2027 – despite accepting the move is inevitable long-term.

Leader Cllr Izzi Seccombe confirmed last week that Warwickshire County Council would be applying to the government for a reorganisation, bringing the current county, district and borough councils into one new unitary authority covering the whole area.

It came after expressions of interest were formally invited for such plans in a bid to streamline local government in England and Wales.

Initial applications are required by January 10 and the government then decides which areas are best suited to go forward that quickly.

If Warwickshire is chosen, it is likely that the local elections, scheduled for May 2025, will be delayed by a year so they can be held to decide who is in charge of the new authority which won't fully kick in until April 2027.

That would leave the current Conservative administration in charge of the county until then, the final 12 months being a transition period for the new set-up.

Cllr Seccombe's argument for acting fast was that it would give Warwickshire more control to shape its own future rather than having an off-the-shelf proposal imposed upon it, and that the county is already seen as "ready to go" having explored the best options over the past three or four years.

The Green view

The Green Party's group leader at county level Cllr Jonathan Chilvers said: "Clearly this is the government's direction of travel but we are still considering whether it is best for Warwickshire to be early adopters.

"There is a lot to think through. We are very keen on making sure that decisions are taken in the most local place so we would want town and parish councils to come out with a greater say.

"At the moment, Nuneaton and Bedworth don't even have town councils, nor does Rugby. We would really want to see those in place so people have that very local connection rather than the residents of, say, Polesworth or Shipston only being represented by a council in Warwick.

"At the very time we need to get on and deliver the job, our country is broken in parts. We could potentially spend years rearranging deckchairs and arguing over who owns what, or what is at the top of the notepaper. 

"I am very concerned it could take away from the work we need to do to deliver for residents. You have to be really sure if you are going to throw everything up in the air and see where it lands.

"Off-the-shelf devolution deals for places that want them, fine, but potentially imposing it and causing chaos at a time when stability is required is not the best way forward."

He added that the politically-led decision on whether to apply should be made in public. 

"It cannot just happen behind the scenes," he added.

"We will be looking for a formal process by which the leader, the cabinet or full council makes a public decision. It is a big deal for Warwickshire to put in any request." 

The Lib Dem view

Cllr Jerry Roodhouse was more open to the swifter timescale, accepting there could be advantages in relation to funding opportunities, despite reservations from the Liberal Democrat group. 

Stressing it would be a new council, not a takeover by county, he said: "They're (the government) going to do it, the white paper clearly lays that out.

"People have spoken to me about consultation and greater accountability around it but reading the white paper, that is not going to happen.

"Reluctantly, our view is that we can see it coming, so do we look at working on it together? I would urge all chief executives, leaders and political parties to sit down and discuss what is best for residents."

He expressed concern over the lack of reference to children's services, social care or disabilities in the national paper.

"Is there another plan that is going to pop out saying they have to be moved to a trust, something like that? I'd like some greater clarification on that," he said.

He also advocated establishing parity for local areas by establishing town councils where they don't already exist.

"You would still have very local democracy and a precept that we could charge to help and support the town to do what it needs to do," he added.

The Labour view

Labour group leader Cllr Sarah Feeney was keen to look at the benefits but was another who wants to maintain local connections. 

"With how things are at the moment, there is concern that people drop between the cracks, getting pushed between one council and another with issues not getting resolved in a way that might happen if we had a unitary," she said.

"There are always pros and cons but the question of which council or councillors you go to would to an extent be reduced or gone completely. 

"It will take some working through. What people don't always remember is that this is not the county council taking over, if it happens this will be a completely new authority built from the ground up. 

"The big thing for me is retaining locality, that people feel that they are connected to their council, engaged and that they have a place to go to.

"For Labour, the priority will be keeping services located where they are best placed to be."

The independent view

Cllr Judy Falp, the sole representative of Whitnash Residents at Shire Hall, fears the loss of the hyper-local voice.

"Bigger isn't always better," she said.

"I worry that local democracy at town and district level will be lost. I believe it is all about money, not about giving people a greater say. A lot more thought needs to go into it before we go down this route. 

"Where does Whitnash fit into a massive Warwickshire organisation? Where will our voice be heard?

"Districts tend to deliver the services that impact most on people – housing, environmental health. People don't care too much who is in control but if you are having to go through a massive organisation to find the person you need to speak to, it is going to be hard."