HOPES that major services like education and roads will return to Oxford Town Hall have bitten the dust, leaders admit.

They said plans for all local government services to come under a single “unitary” city council would not win Government backing.

And they said closer working between Oxfordshire councils and neighbouring authorities had put a question mark over savings that could be made. County council leader Ian Hudspeth said: “Unitary status just isn’t going to happen and we need to make sure we don’t go down a black alley chasing shadows which aren’t there.”

Faced with cuts in Whitehall cash support, councils have made major savings and moved to share office services with neighbouring councils.

The county council took £127m out of its £1bn-a-year budget from 2010 to 2013 and is looking to save £74m to 2017.

Cherwell has saved £1.3m so far working with South Northamptonshire Council, while West Oxfordshire is bidding to save £840,000-a-year with Cotswold District Council. South and Vale are also working together.

Mr Hudspeth added: “That would lessen any potential savings which may be achieved through unitary status.

“The Government has said it is not going to create any unitary authorities, so we shouldn’t be wasting our time exploring something which can’t happen.”

Services like schools and housing are currently split between Oxfordshire County Council and five other councils, including Oxford City Council.

A 2007 bid for three new councils to each run all services was rejected by ministers over its prospects of making service improvements and savings.

This was for a city authority; a merger of Cherwell and West Oxfordshire and also South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse district councils.

And the 2007 bid pledged to shave as much as 20 per cent off the six councils’ £1bn-a-year running costs.

City council leader Bob Price said education and highways powers would be welcomed, adding: “We are different from the county in terms of racial mix and diversity so it would make much more sense to have those services located within the city.”

Joint working and academy reforms that remove schools from council control mean the 2007 savings don’t stand, he said.

Mr Price, whose council is to cut £6.3m from 2011 to 2014 from its £24m-a-year spending budget, said: “It’s not on the agenda – we have plenty of other things to keep ourselves busy.”

Vale leader Matthew Barber said savings no longer “stack up” while South leader Ann Ducker said: “There would not be the savings now.”

West Oxfordshire leader Barry Norton said he “never supported unitary plans.”

And Cherwell leader Barry Wood said the “jury is still out” on unitaries while its work with South Northants had been shown to save cash.

The city council and West Oxfordshire said they had not spent anything on investigating unitary status. The others said they couldn’t comment in time. Out of 63 county councillors, 28 also sit on either the city or district councils, therefore drawing two allowances.

 

THE IDEA

UNITARY authorities were first mooted in a 1969 Royal Commission report set up by Labour Minister for Housing Richard Crossman.

But they were left out of the 1974 “big bang” reorganisation of councils under Prime Minister Ted Heath’s Local Government Act 1972.

This created a system of county and district councils, with county authorities responsible for more expensive services like roads and schools and district councils taking on services like waste collection and planning.

In 1995 unitary authorities were created in places like Avon and Cleveland, though this was ruled out in Oxfordshire.

The aim was to reduce duplication and simplify services so residents got all services from one council.

But critics said keeping the two systems of county and district councils and unitary authorities provided a “patchwork” system of varying quality.

In 2009, 44 district and borough councils made way for nine unitaries in the latest round of changes.