BIGGER councils on Teesside to solve a financial conundrum faced in Middlesbrough have been suggested by an authority chief.

Middlesbrough chief executive Tony Parkinson believes making council sizes of 300,000 people “makes sense” amid high demands on social care and tight costs in the town. 

The top officer suggested two mega-councils straddling the River Tees could be a possible solution, according to the Local Government Chronicle.

Mr Parkinson told the Local Democracy Reporting Service he wasn’t calling for a “North Tees council” – of Stockton north of the Tees, Darlington and Hartlepool, and “South Tees” authority, of Redcar and Cleveland, Middlesbrough and Stockton south of the Tees. 

But he explained how the geographical constraints faced by Middlesbrough created tensions when it came to council finances.

Mr Parkinson said: “We need more houses, more people in the town, because that will grow our council tax and business rates base.

“Because of our size and our demographics, we’re always going to be a financial knife-edge.

“Really strong financial management is key.”

The top officer added:

“The reality is from a financial perspective we are small and that makes it difficult. 

“Larger authorities are less reliant on Government grants – Stockton has less reliance on government grants than Middlesbrough which means they can withstand government cuts much better than us. 

“They’re heading for a population of 200,000.

“I was asked whether I thought Middlesbrough was too small – and I said from that perspective yes, it is. 

“The Government was mooting local government reorganisation last year but then rowed away from it. 

“They were talking about population sizes of 300,000 which I think makes sense.  “I think we’ll be in a much stronger financial position if we had a population like that.”

Teesside has a geographical mish-mash of authority bodies and identity labels.  Cleveland Police covers Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Stockton, and Redcar and Cleveland.

The Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA) covers the four above plus Darlington. 

Teesside’s place as an official local authority body ended in 1974 when the “County Borough of Teesside” became Cleveland County Council, which itself was disbanded in 1996. 

Historic counties of Yorkshire and County Durham north and south of the Tees add another layer of identity. 

Middlesbrough Council’s catchment has a population of under 150,000 at the moment. 

However, efforts to build on green space within its borders have proved controversial. 

The continued impasse over the 1,650 Stainsby Masterplan east of the A19 is one such example. 

Mr Parkinson said he was not calling for local government reorganisation but he conceded the geographical limits of the borough created tension when it came to planning. 

He added: “Plans to build houses are always controversial, whereas in a much larger area, perhaps it wouldn’t be because you might make different decisions on where you want to situate housing.

“There would be less controversial sites.  “There are no less controversial sites in Middlesbrough.  “We’re constricted geographically – that’s just a fact.”

“Wouldn’t want to join”

The Government had lined up a white paper on devolution reforms last year – with some early suggestions of unitary authorities having between 300,000 to 650,000 people.

This has now been replaced with a “levelling up white paper” now expected to come later this year. 

More than half of Middlesbrough Council homes are in council tax bands A and B. 

This is coupled with a very high proportion of the council’s budget being spent on social care – particularly children’s social care.

Stockton Council is boosted by returns from housing stock south of the river in higher bands as well as business rates from the non-leisure side of Teesside Park. 

Council leader Cllr Bob Cook said Stockton “wouldn’t want to join” a north or south Tees council. 

The Labour chief added: “Our borough goes both sides of the river – not just one.

“To be honest, they’d (Middlesbrough) have to go back to 1972 and the reorganisation of Local Government when they were given pretty poor boundaries. 

“They couldn’t expand really and the town has stood still – unfortunately, people have been migrating to the west to Stockton and Ingleby Barwick, from Middlesbrough.

“They are shedding lots of residents and instead of growing, they’re getting smaller. 

“It will be a small town in Europe then.”

Union with Thornaby?

Leaders in neighbouring Thornaby haven’t always got on with their counterparts and colleagues north of the river. 

The town is to be split in two if Parliamentary boundary reforms are agreed – with the east of Thornaby being lined up for a new Middlesbrough constituency. 

Cllr Steve Walmsley, mayor of Thornaby, liked the sound of a South Tees authority.

He added: “I am all for a return to a single Teesside authority which was abolished far too early. 

“It’s interesting what Bob Cook has to say.

"He seems to have forgotten that Thornaby and Yarm held referendums that both returned a desire for separation from Stockton. 

“Both were legitimate, but wholly dismissed by Bob and the council. 

“I wouldn’t mind a chat with Middlesbrough Council to discuss the benefits of union with Thornaby. 

“It could even enhance Middlesbrough’s bid for city status.”

Eye on the day job

Darlington and Hartlepool Council leaders, Heather Scott and Shane Moore, weren’t overly enamoured with the suggestion of two mega-councils in the Tees Valley, according to the LGC.

Redcar and Cleveland Council leader Cllr Mary Lanigan and Middlesbrough Mayor Andy Preston have been contacted for comment on their thoughts about council area reorganisations. 

Mr Parkinson said reforms tended to happen when authorities were facing financial trouble. 

He added: “It certainly doesn’t matter what I think. Do I think something will change? At some point, yes.

“But when? who knows. 

“We’ve had local government reorganisations in 1974, in 1996, and we have health being reorganised now. 

“There are parliamentary boundary reviews taking place at the moment. 

“And at some point in time, it will come back on the agenda. 

“But it’s not something I want to force.

“We’re too busy dealing with the day job at the moment which is rising demand, shrinking purse strings, poor health profiles in the town, poor economic profiles, and the impact of covid which is as yet unknown.

“All those are the things we’ll be focussing on – not local government reorganisation, unless we’re forced to.”