Options for Cambridgeshire's unitary councils announced
The statement was issued by the leaders at East Cambridgeshire District Council, Fenland District Council, Huntingdonshire District Council, Cambridge City Council and Peterborough City Council. It added: "As council leaders we are working collaboratively in the best interest of residents and businesses across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough."The government's reorganisation agenda has raised some challenging issues for us all which we have been working through collectively over the last few months.We still have outstanding questions and issues which have yet to be resolved."However, we agree that there are currently three options that appear to be the most financially viable based on the government's criteria. These options are based on existing authority boundaries and are being further developed to be submitted to government by late November."
Proposals for unitary councils
From April 2028, rather than dealing with separate county, city, and district authorities, residents will access all services - including road maintenance, bin collections, education, planning, social housing, social care, and benefits support - through a unitary council.Parish and town councils will not be affected and will continue to operate as they do now, serving local communities.Proposal A would mean the first unitary council would include Peterborough City Council, Huntingdonshire District Council, and Fenland District Council. The second unitary council would include Cambridge City Council, East Cambridgeshire District Council and South Cambridgeshire District CouncilProposal B would see Peterborough City Council, East Cambridgeshire District Council, Fenland District Council and Huntingdonshire District Councils working as a unitary authority. Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council would form the otherProposal C would include Peterborough City Council, East Cambridgeshire District Council and Fenland District Council as a combined council. This would leave Cambridge City Council, Huntingdonshire District Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council together. All of the unitary councils would have county council functions.The statement said each option has "different strengths and implications for services" and it encouraged resident, businesses and partner agencies to share their views through a consultation due to be launched next week."We also want to take this opportunity to reassure residents that services will not be affected," they added.
Follow Peterborough news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
6 minutes ago
- The Sun
Epping migrant protesters pop champagne after court victory sees asylum seekers face the boot from Bell Hotel
EPPING migrant protesters were seen popping champagne to celebrate a High Court ruling that will see asylum seekers booted out of the Bell Hotel. Just hours after the landmark ruling was handed down protesters were seen rejoicing over the news. 7 7 7 A High Court judge granted Epping Forest District Council a temporary injunction to block asylum seekers being housed in the Essex hotel. The landmark move was widely celebrated and could spell an end to every migrant hotel, which are funded by UK taxpayers. Protesters were seen rejoicing outside the hotel in Essex today, popping bottles of champagne, spraying the drink in the air and waving Union Jacks. Crowds of local families and activists gathered outside the hotel as the news was passed down that migrants would now be booted out of the premises. Families partying outside the hotel told The Sun the ruling will set a precedent for the other hotels across the UK. 'Send them home and protect our kids,' the growing crowd can be heard shouting and hundreds of cars have driven past honking their horns in support. Champagne was popped and sprayed across the hotel sign, but the protest still remained relatively peaceful. A few migrants made their way inside the hotel but not before anti- immigration protesters shouted at them to leave the area. Men, women, teens and children screamed 'pack your bags' at the blank faced migrants as they were escorted into the hotel by police officers. One jubilant protester told GB News: "I'm elated it has paid off. We've been protesting week after week and it's worked. I'm so happy. Migrants to be kicked out of hotel at centre of protests in landmark ruling after asylum seeker's 'sex attack' 'Keep us safe. That's all we ask for.' There were chants of "save our kids" as protesters waving Union Jacks and St George's Cross flags heard the ruling. Protesters held up signs and placards declaring "we want Epping safe" and "clear them out" as they celebrated what they saw as a victory. The ruling today was welcomed by Reform leader Nigel Farage, who said: "This is a victory for the parents and concerned residents of Epping. They do not want their young women being assaulted on the streets. 7 7 7 "This community stood up bravely, despite being slandered as far right, and have won. They represent the vast majority of decent people in this country. "Young, undocumented males who break into the UK illegally should NOT be free to walk the streets anywhere. They must be detained and deported. "I hope that Epping provides inspiration to others across the country." Chris Whitbread, the leader of Epping Forest District Council, said he was "delighted" with the decision and called it "great news for our residents." It comes after weeks of protests were sparked when a migrant staying at the hotel was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. Up to 2,000 activists had marched on the building in just one demonstration previously. Some far-Right thugs joined some of the unrest and launched themselves on riot vans, smashed windshields and ripped off wingmirrors in senseless displays of " hooliganism." A total of 28 people have been arrested in relation to disorder at the hotel, and 16 of them have been charged. The hotel housed migrants from May 2020 to March 2021, then from October 2022 to April 2024. The hotel's owners, Somani Hotels Limited, said the council never instigated any formal enforcement proceedings against this use. In court Somani had argued that contracts to house asylum seekers had been a "financial lifeline." Lawyers for the firm also argued that political views were no grounds for an injunction and branded the ruling "draconian." The local authority argued that the Bell Hotel had breached planning regulations by failing to operate the premises for its designated purpose. The ruling from Judge Mr Justice Eyre will force the owners of the Bell Hotel to remove migrants from the accommodation within 14 days. 7
Daily Mail
6 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
John Swinney isn't bothered 'in the slightest' by SNP legal battles... paid for by YOU
John Swinney has been accused of being cavalier with public money after claiming he is not bothered 'in the slightest' about two high-profile law suits against SNP ministers. The First Minister said being sued for apparently ignoring the UK Supreme Court and by Alex Salmond 's widow were 'part of the fabric of government life in Scotland'. Speaking to STV's Scotland Tonight, Mr Swinney refused to comment on the substance of the actions as 'live proceedings' were involved. But asked if he was 'bothered about them', he said: 'Not in the slightest. They're part of the fabric of government life in Scotland, and I've got to deal with them all.' His comments coincided with claims Scotland's public sector has 'squandered' £406million on legal services in just the last three years. Scottish Conservative finance spokesman Craig Hoy said: 'John Swinney might arrogantly be dismissing the prospect of this latest legal action, but he will not be the one footing the bill. 'The SNP and their army of quangos have blown over £400million in legal fees in recent years and the First Minister doesn't seem bothered about wasting yet more taxpayers' money. 'If they finally just implemented the Supreme Court verdict, then at least one of these cases would be avoided.' For Women Scotland, who beat the Scottish Government in court earlier this year, have launched fresh legal action against John Swinney's government Alex Salmond's widow Moira is reviving a £3 million claim her late husband began in 2023 For Women Scotland (FWS) last week took legal action against SNP ministers for failing to enforce April's Supreme Court ruling on gender. The group, whose previous challenges led to the judgment, wants a judge to strike down policies on the housing of trans people in jail and transgender pupils using single-sex school toilets. The Supreme Court ruled biological sex, not gender choice, determines a person's rights under UK equality law. But Mr Swinney has failed to act, claiming he has to wait for updated advice from the UK Equalities and Human Rights Commission. Critics accuse him of playing for time to avoid a row within the SNP before May's Holyrood election. A motion to the SNP conference in October claims the 'reductionist' ruling 'rolls back progress for all women'. It also emerged on Sunday that Alex Salmond's widow Moira is reviving a £3million compensation claim her late husband began in 2023. The ex-First Minister took the action over the Scottish Government's botched 2018 in-house probe into sexual misconduct claims. The investigation was later ruled unlawful, unfair and 'tainted by apparent bias'. Meanwhile, figures from 168 public bodies revealed £406million was spent on legal services over three years. The Scottish Government had the largest bill, at £89million, followed by NHS Scotland at £62million. Tory MSP Stephen Kerr, who obtained the costs under freedom of information, said the total sum was 'staggering' given the state of public services. A government spokesman said: 'The Scottish Government and NHS Scotland are required to take legal advice on a range of issues.'
The Guardian
6 minutes ago
- The Guardian
High court asylum hotels ruling leaves Cooper scrambling for alternatives
Yvette Cooper, thanks to Tuesday's high court ruling, is facing potentially explosive decisions over where to house asylum seekers if courts rule that they must leave hotels. The Home Office, usually under Conservative ministers, has been struggling for five years to find an alternative to hotels so they can house a growing number of asylum seekers reaching these shores. Labour has said that it expects to empty the 200-odd hotels housing asylum seekers by 2029. Ministers may be forced to rip up that plan and move at a rapid pace because of the ruling's implications. If councils take to the high court to complain about the use of a hotel for housing asylum seekers – and many will be under immense political pressure from the public to do so – it could force officials to find alternative housing for thousands of people. Legal sources believe that there will be similar grounds to launch applications for interim injunctions from a number of councils. This case has centred on an alleged breach of planning laws by owners of the Bell hotel, who it was claimed did not get permission to switch use from a hotel to hostel-style accommodation. Other hotel owners are thought to be in similar positions to Somani Hotels Limited, which originally housed families in the Bell, but faced a legal challenge after the asylum seekers were switched to single men. Ominously for the government, the Reform UK deputy leader, Richard Tice, said his party would look at pursuing similar cases regarding hotels within the 10 council areas it controls, which include both North and West Northamptonshire councils, Doncaster, and Kent and Staffordshire county councils. And the high court rulings can require a rapid response. Epping's application for an interim was launched on 12 August. By 4pm on 12 September, all asylum seekers will have to be removed from The Bell hotel. There may yet be a lifeline for the government. They could convince the court of appeal to overturn the decision. The fact that the Home Office was not allowed to intervene in a case which was directly related to the home secretary's duties to house asylum seekers could well be seized upon by government lawyers. If they fail to overturn the decision, they will face the same dilemma as successive Tory home secretaries going back to Priti Patel, who promised and failed to find alternatives to hotels to house asylum seekers. The number of asylum hotels soared to 400 under successive Tory home secretaries because of a shortage of housing, a growing backlog in asylum applications, and a failure to establish large accommodation sites in buildings such as disused military barracks. Since coming to power, Labour has increased the speed at which applications are processed, by using more 'dispersal accommodation' such as flats and housing in the community. Questions will no doubt be asked inside the department as to why it took the Home Office until Monday to try to intervene in the case. If it had done so last week, when the case came to court, it would have stood a better chance of preventing the injunction. The political implications of the ruling will continue to unsettle Cooper and No 10. Yet again, the government has been caught flat-footed on an immigration-related issue, as it struggles with soaring numbers of small boats crossing the Channel. Anti-asylum seeker protesters will see this as a victory in response to their demonstrations across the country this summer. Reform UK and its leader, Nigel Farage, currently leading in most polls, will be buoyed by the prospect of further embarrassment for the government.
