MORE than £20million a year could be saved by streamlining the five local authorities in Bucks into a single body, according to the findings of a study commissioned by the county’s business community.

The research into the cost of local government concluded that annual savings of £20.7m could be made, as well as a potential five year net saving of more than £58m.

The survey was commissioned by the Buckinghamshire Business First organisation, which raised the £25,000 needed to pay for the research, conducted by Ernst & Young, through a crowdfunding scheme.

The four district council leaders said in a joint statement that although the new data was “historic” the report did not take into account the savings achieved by the five authorities this year – and that the suggestion should not become a distraction from their current provision of services.

But Buckinghamshire County Council leader Martin Tett said he hoped the report would spark a debate that would lead to change.

He stressed the importance of finding savings wherever possible given that local government could expect more funding cuts. He called elements of the current system "crazy", and said better planning for communities and businesses could be achieved with an overhaul of the local authorities.

The research centred around four possible alternatives to the current system, including streamlining into two councils. The findings say that the option delivering the biggest savings is that of a single unitary authority covering Buckinghamshire.

It said there would be upfront costs to implement a unitary authority, the biggest being the cost of redundancy. These, and other costs, would be repaid after around 18 months according to the research, with net cumulative savings across the first five years of more than £58m.

Guy Lachlan, Owner of Jones & Cocks and spokesperson for the Buckinghamshire Business Group, said: “There is a growing desire from businesses and residents in Buckinghamshire to get involved in decision making that affects where they live and work.

"The fact that the business community contributed £25,000 to finance the research shows the strength of feeling on this. This report does not look to predetermine a solution but rather to inform the debate.

“The publication of this independent research paper has reinforced what the business community has been saying for a number of years.

"Our local authorities need to look to rationalise their organisations and make the best use of taxpayer’s money for the benefit of businesses and residents alike.

"This issue can no longer be swept under the carpet and needs to be given serious consideration by local politicians, especially in an election year.”

The report said that £7.7m could be saved by removing duplicate roles across the organisations, and £3m could be saved by having 30 fewer senior managers.

While the report notes that the coalition government is not accepting any more unitary authority bids during the current parliament, the issue was likely to become an “important factor in the debate about local government” in the forthcoming general election.

The full report can be found by clicking here.

A JOINT statement has been released in response to the report from the four district council leaders - Cllr Richard Scott, Leader of Wycombe District Council; Cllr Isobel Darby, Leader of Chiltern District Council; Cllr Adrian Busby, Leader of South Bucks District Council; and Cllr Neil Blake, Leader of Aylesbury Vale District Council.

"It is certainly interesting to see the outcome of the Bucks Business First initiative and the innovative approach of crowd funding. The data is by its nature historic and does not take into account the significant savings being achieved by all five authorities in the current year.

"The Coalition Government has no current appetite for structural change in local government and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has recently reinforced this. However, there is already a drive for greater co-operation, cross boundary working and the delivery of better services at less cost.

"We wholeheartedly support this approach and each of us has an ambitious programme of making savings and transformation. We are open to considering new ways of working, including looking at any unitary models, which would have to be in the best interests of our council taxpayers.

"We recognise that the General and District Council elections are only a few months away and therefore believe this matter should be explored in much greater depth after May 2015, when there will a period of political stability.

"That is the time to engage fully in this debate and consider the relative merits of the options available. We will then be able to test out the assumptions with the benefit of up to date information.

"In the meantime, it is important not to get distracted from continuing to deliver high quality, cost effective services."

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE County Council leader Martin Tett also responded to the report, saying he hoped it would spark a debate that would lead to change.

"In what are incredibly challenging times for all parts of local government this impartial report 

clearly shows large savings can be achieved for the residents of Buckinghamshire.

"It is absolutely clear that, whoever is in Government after next May, local  government funding 
will be cut substantially again. If we are to maintain vital services like child protection, care 
for the elderly, waste collection and improved roads, all parts of local government will have to 
examine their historic ways of working. At the same time, coming together to create a new, more 
efficient single council for Buckinghamshire must go hand in hand with more devolution to our local 
Towns and Parishes.

"A single Buckinghamshire, with empowered local Town and Parish Councils, would be a strong and respected national advocate for our residents and businesses.

"Even more important in some ways to the financial savings is the opportunity to  bring together 
the planning and fundi ng of new housi ng and jobs with the provision of essential infrastructure 
such as the necessary roads, schools, parks and health facilities.

"We should end the crazy system of having separate District Councils which plan new housing and have the money, whilst separately the County Council has responsible for delivering the local infrastructure but little money.

"The result would be better planned new communities and businesses with facilities in place where and when they are needed. I hope that this is the start of a debate that leads to change."