Rugby Borough Council backs plans for one new county-wide unitary authority – and wants it to be located in town

Elected officials from all three parties represented – Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives – agreed that one would be best, bucking the trend of Warwickshire’s other four district and borough councils who called for a north-south split.

Rugby has been the outlier since the national government told councils to prepare to move to unitary status almost a year ago. Warwickshire’s other five authorities – the county and Warwick, Stratford-on-Avon, North Warwickshire and Nuneaton & Bedworth district/borough councils – quickly established preferred positions while those to the east waited.

However, while borough councillors agreed with Warwickshire County Council that one was the way to go, concern was expressed over the county’s quest for continuing authority status during the interim period and the prospect of any new council continuing to have its main headquarters in Warwick.

Leader Councillor Michael Moran (Lab, Admirals & Cawston) said: “Throughout this process, different councils have formed their views at different stages, as is their right.

“For our part, we thought it important to wait until both options were put forward, independently assessed and clearly understood before debating and reaching a conclusion.

“Based on that evidence, I believe that a single Warwickshire unitary offers the best option for long-term financial sustainability, the clearest structure for protecting essential services and the most coherent and resilient model for the county as a whole.

“The analysis indicates that it offers a sustainable platform for the delivery of vital services across all parts of Warwickshire, including those areas where demand pressures are most significant and service failure is not an option.”

However, he added: “I want to be clear that for me, it is not about simply adopting the Warwickshire County Council proposal.

"Rugby Borough Council was alone in not jumping to a position when the other five did back in January. We were alone in saying ‘let’s wait to see the evidence’ to make an informed decision on some absolutely vital services.

“This conclusion is not about political preferences or taking sides, it is about saying yes to a single unitary which is clearly the most sensible outcome.

“However, it needs to be one based on a new culture and a new structure. That is why in the period in front of us, there is an opportunity to push for a Rugby model in which we see a brand new single council with a base spread across the county and a material presence in every town.”

Warwickshire County Council’s push for continuing authority status has caused concern in the other district and borough councils.

Opponents object to the idea of the county’s culture being quietly embedded into the new council as opposed to starting afresh with the best bits of all current authorities. It has been described as a “hostile takeover” but the county insists it is nothing more than a practical step to aid a smooth transition between legal entities.

Cllr Moran described the request as “interesting”.

“I understand the practical reasons for needing clarity around core systems on vesting day, but it has to be on the clear basis that in any situation it is not a takeover by the county council," he added.

Councillors raised their ire at those pushing the two-unitary plan throwing Rugby in with the north – with North Warwickshire and Nuneaton & Bedworth boroughs – without enough consideration of whether it was what Rugby wanted. The issue of splitting services currently dealt with on a county-wide basis was also raised.

Deputy leader of the Liberal Democrat group Councillor Isabelle McKenzie (Rokeby & Overslade) also weighed in on the continuing authority plan.

“Do we want Warwickshire to be the continuing authority and the rest have to just join in with them? I’m not keen,” she said.

“I don’t think Warwickshire does a particularly great job, I really want it to be a new start and it isn’t ideal to have Warwickshire as continuing authority. I see some sense in terms of things like payroll but lots of others have gone through this and I am sure we can jump some of the learning.”

She then argued “it actually makes sense to move functions to Rugby because we are in the centre”.

“At least the councillor-related functions should be here," she continued.

"It is the minimum travelling distance, so the chamber at the very least, and local services like planning and bins, all the things that are actually delivered locally."

Councillor Ian Picker (Con, Hillmorton) credited the Labour administration for taking time over a decision that ended up getting broad support.

“If I were being cynical, I would say (Warwickshire’s other councils) worked backwards from the conclusion,” he said.

“I must commend the administration for not taking the easy route of jumping one way or the other and waiting for the evidence because appendix D (Rugby’s own independent review of the business cases put forward) shows the two-unitary model won’t work, in my opinion.

“The reasons why we are having this conversation… are core financial savings. You break one unitary into two parts, you separate those functions out again, you defeat the point. It is a non-starter.

“The choice is obvious, one single unitary that is part of the West Midlands Combined Authority. It is the only thing that makes logical and practical sense but if you did want to prove that this will be a new authority and a new way of doing things, yeah, stick it in Rugby.”

The council's position will inform the cabinet decision on the final submission, one which takes place on Wednesday (November 26).

From there, the government looks at all options before launching a public consultation in early 2026.