UPDATE: Major council shake-up scrapped despite possible £113m savings

Despite spending £200,000 on two reports looking at how to cut the number of councils, officials now say there is no point in them discussing the findings.

Bob Price, leader of Oxford City Council, said a bitter split over how many authorities there should be under a new system meant further debate would be "a waste of time".

He said: "The Government has been clear that we cannot make progress without a consensus, which does not exist.

"That is not likely to be achieved, so we are not going to carry on talking about it."

Mr Price said council leaders had instead agreed to revive proposals for a devolution bid jointly agreed in February. 

• City council leader Bob Price said the council shake-up was "dead".

He added: "We are going to re-energise those proposals and take them back to the Government and the civil service is happy for us to do that.

"In many ways that is more important than local government reorganisation, because what Oxfordshire needs is stability and that is what devolution is all about."

According to the two reports released today, replacing Oxfordshire's six councils with a single authority could save more than £22m a year.

The documents – one produced for the county council and another for the four districts and city council – said the new 'unitary' authority would be the third largest of its kind in England.

It would run all services such as housing, transport, waste disposal and social care, with district-level 'area boards' given powers to make certain decisions.

The reports also suggest the role of directly-elected mayor could be created to win new devolved powers in a deal with the Government.

Both found a single council would be the most efficient option, saving taxpayers £113m by 2020. The total number of elected councillors needed would also plummet from 282 to as few as 75.

• One report said £75.5m could be saved by 2020 with three councils.

But consultants warned that although a larger council would prevent political "stalemate" between different councils over issues such as where to build housing, it would risk appearing "remote".

Other models such as two or three councils could offer more local accountability, they said.

In scenarios set out by PwC, which produced the study for the district councils, it said two councils – with one being an expanded Oxford – could save £94.5m by 2020 and having three councils would save £75.5m.

But a controversial expansion of Oxford's boundaries would be required to prevent the city facing a budget deficit of £6.2m by 2020 under the two-council option.

This would see the city absorb Kidlington, Yarnton, Forest Hill, Garsington, Sandford, Wheatley, Cumnor, Kennington, South Hinksey, North Hinksey, Wytham, Radley Sunningwell, Wootton, Eynsham and Cassington.

The Government is understood to have seen both reports and has told council leaders they must reach an agreement before any reorganisation can take place.

Ian Hudspeth, leader of Oxfordshire County Council, told the Oxford Mail: "I welcome publication of both reports together so residents and everyone else with an interest in public service improvement can make up their own minds.

• Ian Hudspeth, leader of Oxfordshire County Council. 

"I will be looking to work with the districts on areas of common ground in the hope of finding a way forward."

Mr Hudspeth added: "I will do whatever I can to make sure that happens.

"It is time to get a new deal for Oxfordshire."

Speaking on behalf of the district councils, Matthew Barber said: "The two studies show there are different alternatives for how local government is organised.

"We are committed to working together with the county council in the best interests of our residents."

The publishing of reports - which cost £200,000 - came after the Oxford Mail called for them to be made public. They are likely to prompt a fresh debate over what the best option is.

The county council favours having one single council, but Oxford City Council and the district councils have called for three councils that would work together on a combined authority.

Under the latter model, the combined authority would manage the most expensive services such as social care.

However the Grant Thornton report suggests an extra option that it says would offer "a pragmatic route".

This would see a single unitary council create 'area boards' that would hold some local powers and cover the same areas as the current district councils.

The report adds: "This would be likely to deliver similar financial and service benefits to local residents and businesses... it also offers a pragmatic route to achieving political consensus.

"Friction between localities would not be fully removed, but would be far less likely to result in stalemate."