Councils in row over “premature” publication of local reorganisation report

Admonishing seven local authorities in a joint statement published on Friday, the two local authorities claimed they had less than 24 hours to review the report's summary before release.

According to the statement, councils first saw the draft report on 29 September. It was then published less than 24 hours later.

Nottinghamshire and Rushcliffe claim the report's publication "does not provide the full analysis or the full data and with such a short amount of time to consider the report, it pays lip service to the residents who did take the time to express their views".

They also criticised the number of people surveyed, stating that just 11,000 people responded to the consultation exercise, less than 1% of the county's population.

Cllr Mick Barton, Leader of Nottinghamshire, and Cllr Neil Clarke, Leader of Rushcliffe, said: "Under 24 hours to review and publish a lengthy and incredibly important report that could form a cornerstone of the future of local government in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire is irresponsible. The councils who chose to make this report public prematurely are letting local people down.

"This engagement is not finished and so far has failed to reach most of our residents and businesses. The only clear message from this report is that two in three people here in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire do not want the Labour Government's reorganisation."

The two council leaders said they plan to request a meeting with the independent authors of the report.

They also said they "remain open to working with all councils" to best meet the public's needs, "despite the exceptional disappointment that partner councils released the report early".

Six local authorities – Bassetlaw District Council, Broxtowe Borough Council, Gedling Borough Council, Mansfield District Council, Newark and Sherwood District Council and Nottingham City Council – have since refuted the statement, claiming it contains "a number of inaccuracies".

Replying to the county council and Rushcliffe, they said: "To be fair to all those who completed the survey, we believe the results should be available to them, in keeping with our agreed open and transparent approach to LGR in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire. It was always envisaged the report would be published, and in our view, the public have the right to see it.

"We would like to reiterate that this was an independent process and report. Ultimately these are views given by members of the public, and we must hear those, consider them, and use them to shape our final proposals."

Adam Carey