The Warwickshire councillor who was controversially stopped from speaking on plans to merge councils had his say in Nuneaton last week – admitting his favoured option is "not quite viable".

Cllr Keith Kondakor registered to speak at Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council's cabinet meeting, one which saw the Labour-led authority rubber stamp its intention to push for two unitaries in Warwickshire – one for the north and one for the south. 

Services are currently divided between the county council and Warwickshire's five district and borough councils. 

The national government wants all those services to be delivered through one level of local government from 2028 with Warwickshire County Council advocating a single, county-wide authority to do that, while Warwick and Stratford-on-Avon district and North Warwickshire and Nuneaton and Bedworth borough councils all advocate a north-south split.

Nuneaton and Bedworth's position was supported unanimously by Labour, Conservative and Green councillors at an earlier full council meeting that was attended by county leader Cllr George Finch who, when chairing his own cabinet at Shire Hall, claimed that "a lot of them didn't have the interests of Warwickshire residents at heart".

That was the meeting in which Cllr Kondakor was denied the chance to speak by Cllr Finch, an unusual step but one that he had the right to take in line with the county's constitution.

During the borough meeting, Cllr Kondakor said Cllr Finch "did misrepresent what went on in this chamber the weeks before" but acknowledged that the government's fair funding formula for councils does not go far enough for the north-south split to work, calling for wider change.

"This chamber unanimously voted that two is best and clearly most of the public believe two is better than one," he said. 

"The issue is which is the most financially viable… and when you look at the two reports, you see they are written from a different standpoint. 

"The county council's is very economically based whereas the Deloitte one (commissioned by the four districts and boroughs) is actually talking about how we get the boroughs working in a viable package.

"That is not quite viable because of the way funding is distributed. If you look at the modelling, and I had a meeting with the director of finance at the county council, the big issue is how the funding gets split between rich areas and poor areas.

"This fair funding formula doesn't do that well enough to have two unitaries but two unitaries are what we need. We can't have a giant council that is totally distant from us here.

"When you look at the greater cuts they (the county) are proposing, that means less and less localised services. Less and less swimming pools maybe one day, less museums, less localised stuff. 

"I think we need to passionately fight for two and that means changing the rules. Under the rules, one unitary is the only financially viable option, you cannot argue with that."

He urged borough leaders talk to MPs "to ensure the north has got enough funding" in the event of a two-way split.

"When you look at the county modelling of the option of two, both councils cost the same as one virtually – the big issue was how the wealth was distributed," he continued, insisting the area "desperately needs improvements" to unlock the economic potential of the A5 corridor, creating jobs in Rugby, Nuneaton, Atherstone and Coleshill which could be connected "very quickly" by trains.

"The north and the south could both be successful, and splitting from the south gives them more bandwidth to do what they do," said Cllr Kondakor.

"It is £3 million for management. It is a £600-700 million business, having two lots of £3 million management doesn't actually waste money if you are spending that on making both successful, you're doubling your management bandwidth and not trying to do two different things."

Leader of the opposition at the borough Cllr Kris Wilson argued the county's modelling should not simply be accepted. 

Responding to Cllr Kondakor, he said: "I think we get to the same answer, in a way, but we all know that models on financial viability also depend on the variables that you input. They determine what you get at the end."