Establishing two new unitary authorities is the "clear preference" of the districts and boroughs across Warwickshire according to one council leader.

Stratford-on-Avon District Council leader Cllr Susan Juned made the statement as part of her authority backing a two-option plan for local government reorganisation. 

She acknowledged that starting point would need to be backed by "a balanced case to the government that looks at the whole of Warwickshire", as well as providing an answer as to which strategic authority any new council or councils would be a part of.

But like so many others at Elizabeth House in recent months, the debate turned tribal and centred around the spending plans of the relatively-new Liberal Democrat administration.

Warwickshire's main council services are currently split between Warwickshire County Council and five districts and boroughs underneath. Under government plans to cut bureaucracy, a reorganisation will see all of those services dealt with through one level of local government. 

The six current councils agree that Warwickshire's boundaries should remain as they are and that the current district and borough footprints should inform the patches of any new council or councils.

However, the county council believes there should be one new county-wide authority while the case is also being made for two – a north section covering North Warwickshire, Nuneaton and Bedworth and Rugby boroughs, then a south covering Stratford-on-Avon and Warwick districts. 

The county council's initial report suggests £21 million per year could be saved over five years with a single authority, figures not disputed by work done on behalf of the districts and boroughs, but the county argues splitting things like adult social care and the fire service over two new councils would limit savings to £8 million across the first five years combined.

A report for the districts and boroughs suggests £18 million per year could still be saved across two and Cllr Juned stressed it should not simply be a numbers game. 

"We have to make sure that it is not just savings that dominate, local services have to work well. It must be carefully worked out and backed up by evidence," she said.

"We know that there is widespread research that localised councils are more responsive to the needs of their communities and businesses. The message that goes to the government has to be that it is not just about size, it is about the improvements we can make in efficiency and effectiveness, not just cost reduction.

"Citizen engagement is at the risk of damage when local government becomes too distant and out of touch. At a time when we have a housing crisis, a cost of living crisis and a social care crisis, we must not forget who public services are for and what we need to achieve to meet the needs of residents."

In the end, all bar one councillor backed plans that will see both ideas thrashed out and assessed ahead of final submissions in November. Councillor Chris Mills (Con, Gaydon, Kineton & Upper Lighthorne), who also serves as chairman of Warwickshire County Council, abstained. 

Leader of the opposition Cllr Sarah Whalley Hoggins was thwarted in her attempts to refer back to budget proposals that she opposed, including £1.2 million on a hydro electricity scheme.

She hinted that the Lib Dem group was being frivolous over spending priorities as it becomes clearer that the current district council's days are numbered. 

"I look forward to hearing in due course, whichever proposal moves forward, how we will be able to provide for special education needs, education, social care, the fire service and home-to-school transport," she said, calling for "particular attention" to be paid to the cost of splitting current county-wide services across two councils. 

"Money is short, taxpayers are suffering in every echelon of our society," she added. 

Cllr Liz Coles serves on the cabinet – the panel in charge of the district's major service areas – and made the case for "business as usual". 

"We need to make sure we are mindful in our work, to provide a smooth transition and to carry on the services we provide," she said.

"There will be an accumulation of the services from district and county into a new council but neither we nor the existing county council is that new council, so I don't think now is the time to stop doing our responsibilities in order to serve a new council that doesn't exist yet."

Cllr Malcolm Littlewood accused Cllr Coles of being "trivial".

"You can't have your cake and eat it. Whatever we do, it has to be done with an eye on the future," he argued. 

"This isn't our money, this is money kept in store for the community and residents. Wasting it is not the right thing to do."

The politician in charge of the district's finances Cllr David Curtis concluded the bunfight over cash by committing to being "fiscally responsible", including the introduction of a mid-year spending review in light of the council's future, but insisted: "However long we are in administration, I can assure the council that we will invest in the best possible interests of our residents.

"If I leave a letter for my successor when this administration closes, it will show our legacy to be a greener, cleaner and healthier district with adequate reserves for our successor authority."