Why it matters: The dispute centres on how different approaches to aligning council tax across Suffolk would affect the financial viability of competing reorganisation proposals, with projections ranging from significant costs to substantial savings depending on which model and harmonisation method is adopted.
The details: Five district and borough council leaders have called on Suffolk County Council to "come clean" over what they describe as a "financial black hole" at the heart of the One Suffolk proposal.
According to their analysis of the county council's figures, the One Suffolk plan would not deliver any savings for over 10 years when council tax harmonisation is factored in. They claim it would actually cost £81.8m over the first five years, while their Power of 3 proposal would make £128.5m available to reinvest in services over the same period.
The big picture: Neither the One Suffolk nor Power of 3 business cases include the financial impact of their preferred methods for aligning council tax, with both sides acknowledging this remains a decision for the new council or councils to make.
However, the district and borough leaders say they have calculated what would happen under different scenarios. They say that their analysis shows that the One Suffolk business case's preferred option of aligning council tax to the lowest level in the county would reduce annual revenue by £32m. When applied across five years, they say this transforms One Suffolk's projected £78.2m saving into an £81.8m cost and increases the payback period from 2.9 years to more than 10 years.
In contrast, the Power of 3 councils say their preferred approach would align council tax within the first year whilst ensuring no resident pays more than they would have under existing councils. They claim this would increase the first five-year net saving to £128.5m and reduce the payback period to just 2.5 years.
What they're saying: Councillor John Ward, leader of Babergh District Council, said: "The county's spokesperson should spend less time trying to attack the Power Of Three proposals, and concentrate on giving honest and reliable information. That's what the councils which back the Power Of 3 have done, and that honest approach has meant that people see the real benefits of smaller more local councils which can really tackle the problems that massive councils like Suffolk County Council always cause."
The council leaders said in their statement: "Our numbers show that, taking council tax harmonisation into account, the Three Unitary business case is much more financially beneficial than the One Suffolk business case and that the One Suffolk preference to reduce council tax to the lowest level is unaffordable and undeliverable: it is no more than a populist promise that is more suited to an election manifesto than a credible, responsible business case."
The other side: Councillor Richard Rout, Suffolk County Council's cabinet member for devolution, local government reform and NSIPs, rejected the claims as "fanciful economics" and said "the numbers simply do not add up."
"Three councils would cost more, and save less, than one. The One Suffolk business case makes this very clear and the three-council proposal even acknowledges this," he said.
"The One Suffolk plan is costed and realistic, whereas the three-council proposal is so recklessly optimistic about what could be saved that it renders it a work of pure fiction. The districts and borough have decided to assume that nothing could go wrong – that every slice of toast would land butter side up and every lottery ticket would contain the winning numbers. This only serves to create a rosy and therefore misleading picture. We chose reality over fantasy and I believe so should people taking part in the government's consultation."
For context: The dispute centres on footnotes in the One Suffolk business case which state that different council tax harmonisation scenarios "have not been included in the net benefit of the different configurations" and that "any reduction in Council Tax income from the baseline would have an impact on the net benefit delivered by local government reorganisation."
Public backing: The dispute has drawn public support for both proposals from various figures across Suffolk, including business, tourism and healthcare leaders.
Supporting the One Suffolk model, businessman and Ipswich Central board member Richard Brame said: "I would like to see one unitary council that is better connected but better connected with business too. So, when we are looking to have a discussion about property, broadband or rates, we know where to go. Nobody does at the moment and frequently it's more than one place."
"If this was a business, there would be no question. Would you have three CFOs, or would you have one? Would you have three HR departments, or would you have one? From a business perspective, from a strategic perspective, one unitary is a really obvious route to go down," he added.
Pete Waters, executive director of Visit East Anglia, said: "Visitors do not recognise current district authority geographies, they go where they want in Suffolk. Visitors do recognise counties. LGR offers the opportunity for Visit East of England to market locations based on their draw for visitors, rather than arbitrary council boundaries."
Nick Hulme, chief executive of East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust, said: "The fragmentation that would result from dividing governance and service provision across three councils poses potential risks to patient care continuity and system efficiency. A multicouncil model would likely perpetuate the postcode lottery we already contend with - where patients face unequal access to services depending on their location."
Supporting the Power of 3 model, David Lloyd Gledhill from Landguard and Felixstowe Conservation Trust said the proposal "offers a governance model that better reflects the diversity of Suffolk's communities."
Mark Ling, an independent campaigner who has lobbied for a three-council model for 15 years, called it "a once in a lifetime opportunity to not only make greater efficiencies and intelligent cost savings, but to win a better, more balanced, and more representative Suffolk for all its stakeholders." He said three unitaries would be "based on real areas of interdependence, commonality, and heavens alive be customer (citizen and taxpayer) facing" and "far more reflective of - and answerable to - real locations, stakeholders, people, and citizens within a wider Suffolk."
The bottom line: The battle over Suffolk's future local government structure has intensified, and in all likelihood, continue to do so, with both sides presenting sharply contrasting financial projections and accusing each other of misleading the public about the true costs and benefits of their preferred models.
The Government is expected to announce its decision next March and the public can still have its say through the public consultation that runs until next January.
