The former political lead for Warwickshire's economy revealed he objected to Warwickshire County Council leading a shake-up of local authorities during his time in office – and it "didn't go down particularly well".

Cllr Martin Watson serves on North Warwickshire Borough Council having lost his county seat in May's local elections. 

Prior to that he had served on the county's 10-strong cabinet, the panel of elected officials who oversee and make decisions in relation to major service areas. He was portfolio holder for economy, a post now held by Reform UK's Cllr Rob Howard.

In a withering assessment, Cllr Watson insisted he had not been alone in having doubts over Warwickshire's push for a single unitary council on the same footprint and that colleagues believe that Shire Hall bosses "don't understand our local areas".

The background

National government announced plans to abolish the two-tier council system currently in place in Warwickshire back in December 2024 with the Conservative administration in charge of the county council at the time advocating a single county-wide unitary.

The debate that emerged was whether to go with one or divide Warwickshire into two with unitaries for the north and the south. 

North Warwickshire Borough Council joined forces with the districts/boroughs at Nuneaton & Bedworth, Warwick and Stratford-on-Avon to support the north-south split and councillors voted at a meeting on Monday to submit that preference to the government.

Not only does Warwickshire County Council want one but also to be a continuing authority, meaning it would be the legal successor while the new council is formed.

The argument is that is cheaper and simpler but opponents see it as an attempt at a "hostile takeover", something Cllr Watson concurred with during his address at Monday's meeting.

Doubts

"Being at county at the time this debate first started, what I said to the chief executive (Monica Fogarty) was along the lines of 'I get the fact we have six chief execs, six HR, six IT' but that I very much preferred a district-plus model as opposed to a county-plus model. That didn't go down particularly well," said Cllr Watson.

"If there hadn't been such a large shift in the administration and councillors at county (through May's election results), I'm not sure the single unitary would have got through. There were enough people, even at that time, saying 'hmmm, county-plus, not so sure' because you (the county council) don't understand our local areas.

"Despite the rhetoric that they do, I don't think they do understand our local areas. The services the districts and boroughs provide to our residents are so much more local, focused and available to them, and I think it is really important that we maintain that. That was why I always said a district or borough-plus model was the way to go."

On the subsequent push for continuing authority status, he added: "Even then, they said all six authorities would go and something new would be created, even in their then-rhetoric around a single authority. 

"What they have now asked for is a continuation model, they just want to keep doing what they have always done and absorb the districts and boroughs.

"I think that would be disastrous so the two-unitary model is the right one for our residents." 

When approached by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, Cllr Watson confirmed his use of the word "rhetoric" had not been aimed at the new Reform UK administration.

Clean break required?

A lack of faith in the county council was echoed by Conservative and Labour councillors.

Cllr Brynnen Ririe highlighted "schools that are falling down, care homes that are poorly rated" as well as a flooding incident last winter.

"In January, I rang the county council about 7.30am," she said.

"They turned up at 3.30pm with a sign that said 'flooding'. That wasn't much consolation to residents as we literally swept water to stop flooding into one of the houses."

Cllr Caroline Symonds summed up the feelings of a number of colleagues who expressed regret at the reshuffle happening at all.

"While I would like the status-quo to exist, we have been told we can't do that," she said.

"The fact that the county seems to think it can create a status-quo for itself is an absolute disgrace, it doesn't address the changes that are needed, particularly for the north.

"The north and south have different issues. It is not that one is worse or better than the other, I don't believe that, it is just that there are very different issues and needs.

"We wouldn't be serving our residents well by bringing (forward) this grey area of things being good in one area and bad in another and an average of that means that no one gets a decent service."

She also said financial savings would likely end up back in national rather than local coffers.

"Our residents won't see lower council tax bills from the savings generated, it will just mean less government grant," she added.