Hucknall would be safe from the threat of becoming part of Nottingham city under local government reorganisation (LGR) after the city council’s leader put forward a new option to expand the city’s boundaries.

Coun Neghat Khan (Lab), has outlined proposals that differ to what is currently being considered, in that whole boroughs would not become part of the city, just parts of them.

And Ashfield is not part of the Coun Khan’s proposal – meaning Hucknall would be safe from any threat of a city switch.

But a Hucknall councillor said while it was still the case that nothing final had been decided, the city risk for Hucknall was still there.

Hucknall would not face the threat of becoming part of Nottingham city under Coun Khan's new proposals. Photo: National World

placeholder image — Hucknall would not face the threat of becoming part of Nottingham city under Coun Khan's new proposals. Photo: National World

Under the Government’s LGR, proposals, all nine existing local authorities in Nottinghamshire would be abolished, to create new unitary councils with a higher population of residents.

It is being proposed that two new unitary councils should be created for Nottingham and Nottinghamshire to replace the current nine.

Two core options that are currently out for public consultation at lgrnotts.org are as follows:

A new unitary authority combining Nottingham, Broxtowe, and Gedling, with a second new unitary authority for the rest of Nottinghamshire; Mansfield, Ashfield, Newark & Sherwood, Bassetlaw and Rushcliffe – this is known as 1b.

City council leader Coun Neghat Khan has proposed a new LGR option for Nottingham that would see the city boundaries extended but not include Hucknall. Photo: Nottingham City Council

A new unitary authority combining Nottingham, Broxtowe, and Rushcliffe, with a second new unitary authority for the rest of Nottinghamshire; Mansfield, Ashfield, Newark & Sherwood, Bassetlaw and Gedling – this is known as 1e.

A third option that was being mooted earlier this year was the city expanding to include five areas – West Bridgford, Beeston, Hucknall, Arnold and Carlton.

But speaking to the BBC, Coun Khan says the city council is now proposing a new third option where the city boundary expands into parts of Rushcliffe, Gedling and Broxtowe.

According to the BBC, Coun Khan’s new proposals would see Broxtowe divided up to put Beeston, Toton, Bramcote, Stapleford and Nuthall in the city.

Nottingham City Council's map showing, in pink, where the city council's proposed expanded boudaries would be. Photo: Nottingham City Council

In Gedling, Carlton, Arnold and Burton Joyce would form part of the city, while Rushcliffe would be halved with West Bridgford, Ruddington, Keyworth, East Leake and Sutton Bonington becoming part of the city area.

The remaining parts of these districts would become part of the larger authority made up of Mansfield, Ashfield, Newark & Sherwood, and Bassetlaw.

Coun Khan said: “How do you decide between two options with no significant differences?

My view is that you don’t.

"The reality is that the current city boundaries – set in 1997 – doesn’t reflect the ‘real’ Nottingham.

"We know that Nottingham has changed and it’s time we set a boundary that reflects where we are now.

“Options 1b and 1e, whilst workable, split the Nottingham conurbation, fail to include its surrounding suburbs and fail to address the city and wider county’s needs for the future.

“None of the current councils will exist – new councils will come in their place – so, this isn’t about the city council land-grabbing.

"This is about long-term sustainability, and a thriving city supports the whole county, not just the city.”

Speaking to the BBC, she added: “For me, a boundary review is the best option.

"A lot of people come to the city for work reasons and nights out but don't pay for the services – I don't think it's fair.

"I have people who think the boundary review is the right thing to do but they don't think it can happen in the timeframe.

"I'm not afraid to stand alone on something that I strongly believe can be done."

Coun Lee Waters (Ash Ind), who represents Hucknall Central on Ashfield Council, said: “No-one in Hucknall or Ashfield has asked for LGR, it’s a distraction from the real priorities people want us to focus on.

“While it is welcome that the latest option doesn’t put Hucknall inside the city boundaries, these proposals remain very fluid and the Government will make the final decision, which still leaves Hucknall at risk.

"My priority is to make sure Hucknall has strong local representation and a fair deal.

"I will resist any plan that would see us swallowed up into the city or lose our voice.”

Coun John Wilmott (Ash Ind), who represents Hucknall on both the district and county councils, added: "It is good news, if it is true, that Hucknall is not going into the city, but of course the final decision will be made by the Government.

"And even if the whole of Hucknall is against it, they will still make the final decision.

"I do oppose this reorganisation – I do not see the point.

"The present system is working for most councils and will the promised cost savings, simplification of governance and improved service delivery materialise?

“Evidence from other recent reorganisations suggests they have frequently failed to deliver the promised financial savings.

"We need independent verified evidence that this scheme will create service improvement and that there is a full comprehensive consultation with the general public – and if their vote is ‘no to reorganisation’, it should be taken into consideration.

"As we know each council has different needs, what’s good for one area is not necessarily the answer for another.

"We must have no reorganisation without clear evidence of service improvement and there must be full open consultation, not just the illusion of choice.”