Local government reorganisation credibility is on the line

As Keir Starmer’s local government secretary, Steve Reed took decisions on local government boundaries for most areas undertaking LGR. These decisions were contentious, triggering a swathe of judicial reviews and, as evidence unearthed through early legal proceedings showed, some decisions ran against the advice of officials.  

If the government decisions lacked a strong enough justification, then it is right that Angela Rayner, Reed’s successor at the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, should ensure there is a robust process in place that is compliant with the law. If reviewing decisions means revising decisions, then it is right for her to announce this step as early as possible. 

But make no mistakes, this is an embarrassing moment for a flagship and highly ambitious initiative which promised to transform the delivery of services for local residents, ease workforce pressures, simplify accountability to voters and strengthen councils financially by saving money. 

Ministers must now rebuild trust in the process

As Rayner recognised, a “huge amount of work has already gone into progressing reorganisation in each of these areas”. The local government sector entered the LGR process in good faith – devising LGR proposals in line with the criteria outlined by government and initiating the hard work necessary to ensure new unitary authorities are delivered in a safe and legal manner. Time has been wasted, trust has been badly damaged, and the credibility of the LGR process is on the line.

Ministers have promised to deliver a robust and legally compliant process through a rapid review. But more details are needed about how this process will work, when decisions will be taken and why these decisions will be more robust than before. This clarity is essential to ensure that ministerial choices are recognised and respected by all parties as truly final decisions.

Local authorities need a clear delivery timetable  

Rayner has announced that elections will go ahead in May 2027 on existing council boundaries unless areas ‘are in a position to hold elections to new unitary elections at that point’. Much greater clarity around timetabling is needed to prevent the sector interpreting her decision to pause the process as a decision to delay or deprioritise the LGR agenda.  

Any delayed shadow unitary elections for May 2028 would require statutory instruments to be passed beforehand. Only one area, Surrey, is unaffected by the change – it has been delivering LGR on the fastest timetable and will be split into two unitary authorities in April 2027. Its statutory instrument was introduced in January 2026 and took until March that year to pass through the Commons and Lords, meaning a large volume of secondary legislation to progress through Parliament in 2028. Some council leaders are reportedly questioning whether the government has the capacity to complete decisions and get them through this parliament.  ⁴ Webb C, ‘LGR timetable thrown into doubt’, Local Government Chronicle, 9 September 2026, retrieved 10 September 2026, www.lgcplus.com/politics/governance-and-structure/lgr-timetable-thrown-into-doubt-09-09-2026/

If doubt – or disbelief – becomes the default, then it will have a chilling effect on LGR delivery. Even in the absence of a clear timetable there is a high volume of work that local authorities must execute to ensure a smooth unitarisation process – from identifying and mapping service contracts to harmonising IT systems where possible. This work can continue in the absence of a clear decision on council boundaries, but the government must give a firm steer to the sector on whether this important enabling work should continue.  

The government should align its devolution aims with revised LGR plans

The government has a clearly stated ambition to ‘ensure that every area in England has, or is in the process of establishing, a strategic authority by the end of 2027, with strategic authorities in place everywhere by the end of 2028’. By re-examining all LGR decisions, in theory ministers can ensure final decisions are truly joined up with longer term devolution boundary decisions – better strategic alignment could lead to better outcomes for residents in the longer term.

But the next steps will be tricky. Strategic authorities can only be established with the sign off from all upper tier local authorities in an area. So with whole council local elections underway in May 2027 in at least 31 upper authorities, including in Leicester, Bedford and Medway, many devolution deals could be passed by one party and implemented by another if council leadership changes hands. And any newly-elected leaders might be in post for a short time if new unitaries were to go live in 2029.

Deciding to delay may have been unavoidable. But the timetable for local government reorganisation has the potential to become very messy indeed.