Councils’ divisions over local government reorganisation show need for local leadership

On Friday 21 March, the government received councils' interim plans for local government reorganisation. The plans, which set out options for new systems of unitary local government in the 21 two-tier areas currently covered by both county and district councils and 19 neighbouring small unitary authorities, illustrate deep divisions in many places. Bold local leadership is needed if they are to be resolved.

Councils’ multiple plans and options reflect significant local divisions

The government has received interim plans from all 21 areas invited  ³¹ Local Government Information Unit, ‘LGR interim proposals’, https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1H3pSkfyOnfPAZP87z5PFoMG02Ugh1JRt and not one has consensus support for a single option.
In 10 areas, different councils have submitted separate plans.  ³² This figure includes East Sussex and Brighton, which have submitted two separate plans.  The government has received separate plans from the county and district councils in areas including Surrey, Norfolk, Suffolk and Derbyshire.

Interim plans have been jointly submitted by all councils in 11 areas, although with varying levels of agreement. Nottinghamshire has successfully agreed the number of new unitaries and its plan includes a shortlist of options for their boundaries. However, many other joint plans show councils still deeply divided over the number of new unitaries. For example, Hertfordshire’s submission has options ranging from one to four unitaries and Worcestershire’s states each council’s position.

However, in some areas with joint submissions, councils – such as Hastings, Crawley, and Reigate and Banstead borough councils – have also separately written to the government in support of a preferred option or suggesting an alternative. 

Local leaders need to agree a path towards consensus

The government requested these interim plans as a “temperature check”  ³³ Calkin S, ‘McMahon: First reorg deadline a “temperature check”’, Local Government Chronicle, 13 March 2025, retrieved 27 March 2025, www.lgcplus.com/politics/governance-and-structure/mcmahon-first-reorg-deadline-a-temperature-check-13-03-2025  on councils’ early thinking. Officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will be meeting first with councils in Surrey – which is on an accelerated timetable to submit its final proposal in May – then Devolution Priority Programme areas in April and others in May.  ³⁴ McMahon J, ‘Local Government Reorganisation: Statement made on 24 March 2025: Statement UIN HCWS545’, UK Parliament, 24 March 2025, retrieved 27 March 2025, https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-03-24/hcws545  However, the minister has emphasised that they “will not rule out options at this stage”.  ³⁵ McMahon J, letter to Cllr James McInnes, 13 March 2025, retrieved 27 March 2025, pp. 2-3, https://democracy.devon.gov.uk/documents/b16251/Agenda%20Pack%2020th-Mar-2025%2014.00%20Council.pdf?T=9  

The government expects leaders in each area to jointly submit one final proposal in the autumn  ³⁶ As it is on an accelerated timetable, Surrey’s full proposal is due in May.  ,  ³⁷ McMahon J, letter to Cllr James McInnes, 13 March 2025, retrieved 27 March 2025, pp. 2-3, https://democracy.devon.gov.uk/documents/b16251/Agenda%20Pack%2020th-Mar-2025%2014.00%20Council.pdf?T=9  and does not want to play the role of adjudicator between options in the interim. This means local leaders still have time – and therefore the responsibility – to redouble efforts at working on a single proposal. 

In the areas with the deepest divisions – such as between county councils who want fewer, larger unitary authorities and district councils who want a greater number of smaller unitaries – leaders will first need to commit to working towards one joint proposal. They should also agree joint working arrangements to ensure collective ownership of this ambition. These relationships and collaborative approaches will lay the foundations for successfully implementing reorganisation in the coming years.

Leaders must then agree the process for working towards consensus. Some areas will need to agree a shortlist of options for detailed evaluation, ruling out those that clearly do not satisfy the government’s criteria, including that new boundaries cover sensible economic areas, consider local identity, improve public service delivery, and support devolution arrangements. Areas will need a shared framework and evidence basis to evaluate the shortlisted options. For example, leaders in Nottinghamshire have agreed local criteria for evaluating options, principles for collaborative working and a schedule for developing the final submission.  ³⁸ Gedling Borough Council, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Interim Plan for Local Government Reorganisation, 7 March 2025, retrieved 27 March 2025, https://democracy.gedling.gov.uk/documents/s41598/Appendix%20C%20-%20LGR%20interim%20plan.pdf  

Councils have clear criteria to evaluate their own plans

Councils do not need to wait for the government’s feedback. The government has provided clearer criteria than in earlier rounds of reorganisation, which – despite some ambiguity over the population of new councils – should be used by local leaders to evaluate the trade-offs associated with different scales.

As argued in a recent IfG report, areas must avoid the risk of gerrymandering when evaluating their options, and leaders should set aside political implications as they work towards a common goal of sustainable local government structures.

Councils currently face capacity constraints but collaborative working will help to ease some of these pressures, as suggested at a recent IfG event. As the IfG has called for, the government recently announced a £7.6m capacity fund to support areas to develop their full proposals.  ³⁹ McMahon J, ‘Local Government Reorganisation: Statement made on 24 March 2025: Statement UIN HCWS545’, UK Parliament, 24 March 2025, retrieved 27 March 2025, https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-03-24/hcws545  Further advice and support is available from within the sector. Areas could also ask leaders elsewhere for dispassionate peer review to help detoxify local impasses.

Local leaders should act now to deliver on time

Proactive local leadership is needed to reach consensus by the autumn. 

In the English devolution white paper the government called for an end to the “parent-child dynamic”  ⁴⁰ Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, English Devolution White Paper: Power and partnership: Foundations for growth, December 2024, The Stationery Office, CP 1218, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67ade9866e6c8d18118acd58/English_Devolution_White_Paper_Web_Accessible.pdf  between central and local government, and while reorganisation may feel like an imposition it also an opportunity for local leaders to demonstrate initiative in designing the future governance of their areas. 

There are many examples of local leaders across the country – in areas such as Hampshire and the Solent – exercising strong ambition in working across political divides to develop joint proposals for devolution. The same bold leadership is needed to submit joint proposals for local government reorganisation