The case for unitary authorities is a good one. Why should one council collect rubbish and another dispose of it. Similarly, it is ridiculous that one authority should be responsible for social housing and another for social care.

Oxford City Council announced this week that it had joined forces with three similar cities, Norwich, Ipswich and Exeter, to promote a case to Government for the four to be considered for unitary status.

Its approach, however, is fundamentally flawed. Oxford cannot divorce itself from the rest of Oxfordshire and, in taking this line, it is in danger of setting itself against its neighbours.

In the great scheme of things, Oxford is a small city and one dominated by students that make up a quarter of its population. It is, however, a major centre of employment, entertainment and shopping, for a large surrounding area.

To consider Oxford, a city of 135,000 people, as a unitary authority on its own is to miss the fact that the city actually serves a large part of Oxfordshire's 600,000 population.

Its facilities roads, shops, leisure centres and theatres are used routinely by the people of Kidlington, Kennington, Botley, Cumnor, thousands all living within a few miles of the city centre. This is no less true of some of the bigger centres a little further out such as Abingdon, Eynsham, Witney and Bicester.

One of the most fundamental questions facing Oxford is whether it is large enough both geographically and in terms of population to deal with the issues it is facing.

Does it have the land to plan strategically for its future housing needs? No, it has to rely on the county council now and would have to rely in a unitary scenario on authorities that had no responsibility for Oxford. Does it have the land to cater for future expansion of park-and-ride. The answer is no and, again, it would have to rely on authorities with no stake in Oxford to provide for park-and-ride on the outskirts of the likes of Bicester, Witney and Abingdon. Finally, will a unitary city of the size of Oxford have the financial clout to deliver big solutions to problems such as traffic congestion. We doubt it.

All the arguments point to a much larger unitary authority encompassing both the city and a large surrounding area served by it.

It would be a very different authority to the one that currently exists. Some would argue that that is a good thing. The city council is rated poor by the district auditor, who is concerned it is not improving quickly enough.

A larger Oxford would not be welcomed by many now living outside the city and also raises questions about what you do with areas that are deemed not to fall within Oxford's sphere of influence.

This is not an Oxford, Ipswich, Suffolk and Exeter question, it is a question for Oxford and Oxfordshire. If there is to be one or more unitary authorities in Oxfordshire then it has to be achieved in a way that benefits the whole of the county.

The solutions are far from obvious and clearly contentious. We have argued before for an independent evaluation of the potential for unitary authorities in Oxfordshire and we say it again. There are too many conflicting political and bureaucratic interests in this county for it to be done any other way.