Will a Super Council for North Staffs Save Stoke-on-Trent or Shift the Burden to Newcastle & the Moorlands?
Why Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands fear they could lose out under the new system…
In a bid to give regional mayors more power and streamline services, the government is overseeing a major redesign of local government. The idea of a single ‘super council’ to provide all local government services for North Staffordshire has sparked heated debate, with Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council Leader Simon Tagg raising concerns over the proposal’s impact on his borough. The suggested North Staffordshire Unitary Authority would merge Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle-under-Lyme, and Staffordshire Moorlands.
But is this a case of forcing other councils to shoulder the financial burden, or could it be a practical step toward efficiency and economic growth?
The leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Jane Ashworth, said local towns would have ‘a stronger voice’ under the plans to create a new authority, but Tagg has attacked the single authority plan, saying he can’t see what the real benefits of such a merger would be for residents. “Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council is debt-free and delivers effective services at the local level for its residents. Stoke-on-Trent City Council is in debt, threatening legal action against its schools and is only just regaining control of its children’s services after six years of Government supervision. An expensive, time-consuming reorganisation and integration is the last thing it – and the communities of Stoke-on-Trent – need.”
A Necessary Reset or a Forced Takeover?
Whether Tagg likes it or not, the government is keen for Stoke to become a unitary authority, with Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution Jim McMahon asking for interim plans to be submitted by 21 March, 2025, and full proposals by 28 November this year.
For Newcastle-under-Lyme and the Moorlands, the risks of being absorbed into a larger authority are significant. Rural areas and smaller boroughs often struggle to get the same level of attention and funding when merged into larger administrative bodies. Stoke-on-Trent, as the largest urban centre, would have more influence and demand greater resources, potentially leaving Newcastle and the Moorlands sidelined when it comes to investment, infrastructure, and heritage preservation.
Staffordshire Moorlands, with its rural character and lower population density, could see local services stretched further, with decision-making becoming more centralised and less tailored to local needs. Essential services such as waste collection, local road maintenance, and community projects might be deprioritised in favour of city-centric concerns. The risk is that what works in Stoke-on-Trent does not necessarily work for a market town like Leek or for the many villages scattered across the Moorlands.
There is also a risk that localised decision-making could be lost in a super council model, where Newcastle and the Moorlands may feel like afterthoughts in a system where the city has the most pressing demands and greatest population density.
Would It Actually Save Money?
Combining multiple councils into one could mean serious cost savings, if done right. Merging local authorities could cut out duplicate roles and streamline services. However, councils do not operate in the way many people assume.
The majority of council decisions remain in the hands of the same council officers and employees. The staff who run services, process applications, and manage budgets remain in place, operating under the same structures, regulations, and wage costs. A newly-elected council can push for reforms, but the behind-the-scenes work largely continues as before, often constrained by complex legal and bureaucratic frameworks.
Council chief executives, directors, and high-ranking officials command six-figure salaries and layers of middle management persist across multiple departments. A super council could, in theory, consolidate some of these roles, leading to fewer senior executives drawing large wages, but would it actually happen? Or would existing structures simply be reshuffled with job titles changed rather than eliminated?
Furthermore, merging councils comes with an upfront cost. Integrating IT systems, harmonising staff contracts, and restructuring services are all expensive and time-consuming processes. The promised long-term savings may not materialise for years, and in the meantime, disruption could cause more inefficiency rather than less.
How Would Stoke-on-Trent Benefit?
For Stoke-on-Trent, a super council could be a financial lifeline. The city has suffered from historic underfunding, government austerity measures, and years of financial mismanagement that have left it struggling to maintain basic services. Unlike Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stoke-on-Trent has mounting debts, infrastructure challenges, and underfunded public services. A merger could provide the city with access to a larger tax base, spreading costs across a wider population and allowing much-needed investment in critical areas.
One of the biggest advantages would be the opportunity for improved regional planning. A unified council could align transport, housing, and business development strategies more effectively across North Staffordshire. Instead of competing for investment, Newcastle-under-Lyme, the Moorlands, and Stoke-on-Trent could work together to attract funding for large-scale projects that benefit the whole region.
In addition, a single council could bring better governance and oversight, ensuring that Stoke-on-Trent’s financial difficulties don’t continue to spiral. By integrating services, the city could see improvements in public transport links, road maintenance, and social care, areas where Stoke has struggled due to budget constraints.
Culturally, a unitary authority could strengthen Stoke-on-Trent’s identity as the economic and creative centre of North Staffordshire. The city’s ceramic heritage, industrial history, and emerging arts scene could receive greater attention and investment under a super-council structure. This could also open the door to more ambitious regeneration projects, such as revitalising derelict sites, supporting small businesses, and improving tourism infrastructure.
Finally, job opportunities could be expanded. A larger governing body might provide new career paths for council workers, attract skilled professionals to the area, and allow for the creation of specialist roles that smaller councils simply cannot afford.
What About Local Heritage and Identity?
Another concern is the potential loss of local identity. Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands have distinct histories and governance structures, while Stoke-on-Trent has its own challenges and ambitions as a city. A ‘super council’ could risk diluting these individual identities, leading to decisions being made based on the needs of the largest area rather than ensuring equal representation.
Heritage sites and community projects could also be affected. Stoke-on-Trent, with its rich industrial past, has very different funding and conservation needs compared to the rural heritage of the Moorlands or Newcastle’s town centre regeneration. Would a merged council fairly distribute heritage funding, or would investment be centralised in one area? Would Staffs Moorlands see the same investment in rural conservation, or would those funds be redirected towards city projects?
Additionally, smaller towns and communities risk losing their voice. Local governance ensures that decisions are made at a level where people feel represented. A super council could mean fewer councillors representing larger areas, potentially weakening the link between residents and their elected representatives. This could make it harder for communities to influence local decisions or challenge policies.
Is it a Risk Worth Taking?
At this stage, nobody knows for certain what a North Staffordshire Unitary Authority would mean in practice. The promise of efficiency and cost savings is appealing, but the risks of losing local identity and decision-making power are significant. Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands are right to question how their communities would benefit beyond being asked to help stabilise Stoke-on-Trent’s finances.
Would a super council be the economic boost Stoke-on-Trent needs, or would it be an administrative nightmare for all involved? Would it truly cut waste and bureaucracy, or would it simply be a case of shifting it around under a new name?
The reality is, no one will know until it happens. This could be a bold step forward or a mistake with lasting consequences. The question remains: is it a risk worth taking? It might be for Stoke, but it might not be for Newcastle-under-Lyme or the Moorlands.
If you look at other councils that have become unitary authorities, there’s good and bad news. Top officials told The Yorkshire Post that unitary reforms had stopped North Yorkshire County Council (now York and North Yorkshire Council) from going bankrupt. Mayor David Skaith said the council’s strategic growth plan, which includes increasing productivity within the farming sector and creating job opportunities through a transition to clean energy, is an example of devolution in action. “We’re using investment at a local level for the benefit of our communities.”
However, Somerset Council – a county council that has also performed the functions of a district council since 2023 – is currently in turmoil following an announcement last week that it will cut hundreds of jobs as the delivery of different public services are streamlined. To make these structural changes, it was allowed to raise council tax by 7.5% (it’s usually capped at 5%). Independent Councillor Gwiylm Wren told Somerset Live that the council's current predicament, “should serve as a cautionary tale to the government, which is encouraging the creation of more unitary or mayoral authorities as part of its devolution programme.”
On balance, if handled well ( a big if ) I think this would benefit the area overall, the region needs an identity, and covering a larger area would enable the area to have greater influence . I see little that North Staffordshire and the rest of the county has in common.
The point about Stoke taking money from other areas is lost on me to be honest , people living in the other areas often make their money in Stoke then spend it elsewhere so I am all for the City getting a better share overall from the more middle-class areas. Stoke is pretty much the only City that I can think of that does not have a middle class and this does not help create balance . Naturally if as with a lot of local politics this debate descends into parochial bickering by those with vested interests in the Status Quo I don't see how that benefits anybody , the Social problems of Stoke are evident in much of Newcastle and even parts of the Moorlands . I would extend the region to Stone which is another growing town that benefits from the City .
Stoke is already a unitary authority. Do your research before posting articles.