This comes after correspondence between Suffolk County Council and the government was published for the first time last week – revealing that the Secretary of State rejected advice from civil servants when he chose the three unitary option for Suffolk.
Suffolk County Council argues that the Secretary of State departed from his officials' advice, exceeded his statutory powers and failed to apply the Government's own published criteria when making the decision.
The Government’s letter states:
"We consider the 1 unitary to be the strongest proposal for Suffolk against the criteria. The single unitary proposal meets all the criteria, and does so more strongly than the 3 unitary proposal in relation to its geography, financial resilience, and service delivery. The 3 unitary proposal meets the criteria though it is complicated by a significant boundary change request modification."
In the cabinet meeting, councillors heard that the legal challenge is intended to halt Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) in Suffolk entirely, and that the reorganisation could cost around £40 million while creating significant disruption to public services.
In his speech to councillors, Councillor Michael Hadwen, Leader of Suffolk County Council, said:
“Public apathy around LGR will quickly become anger when it starts to impact on vital public services, cost millions of pounds to deliver and threaten the fabric of Suffolk’s identity. Public support for big changes is not guaranteed and must not be taken for granted.
“There is a real and present danger that people will suffer and vast sums of money will be wasted if LGR is allowed to continue.
“Today, we are deciding if we’re going to respect Suffolk’s history and protect its future, or let a flawed process continue with disastrous consequences.”
Deciding to continue with a judicial review is not an attempt to replace the Government's preferred three-unitary model with a single authority, but to ensure decisions of this scale are made lawfully, transparently and in accordance with the Government's own published process.
