Beyond the Map: Why Governance Design Beats Structure in Local Government Reorganisation

Local Government Reorganisation (LGR): More Than Just Structure

Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) is often portrayed as a structural exercise merging councils, redrawing boundaries, and creating new unitary authorities. These changes dominate headlines and consultation papers because they are visible and tangible. However, as Rowan Cole, founder of Coalface and former councillor, argues in our latest Truth About Local Government podcast episode, the real determinant of success lies not in the structural model but in the design of governance.

Why Governance Design Matters More Than Structure

When councils reorganise, the instinct is to prioritise the physical mechanics: combining departments, aligning IT systems, harmonising HR policies, and consolidating services. These tasks are undeniably important they ensure operational continuity and deliver the economies of scale that central government often promises. Yet, they do not address the deeper question of legitimacy or public trust. Governance design the frameworks for decision-making, delegation, and accountability sets the tone for how power is exercised and how democratic confidence is built.

Governance design is not just a technical detail; it is the foundation of political culture. The first 100 days after a shadow authority is elected are critical. This is when councillors decide who holds authority, how decisions are made, and what checks and balances exist. These choices influence everything from planning speed to financial oversight and can either foster collaboration or entrench division.

The Democratic Legitimacy Challenge

Consider the context: voter turnout in local elections has been falling for years. In England’s 2024 local elections, turnout averaged 32%, with some areas dipping below 25%. This trend is not just a statistic it is a warning sign. If a newly formed council begins life with such low engagement, its democratic legitimacy is immediately questioned. How credible are decisions made by councillors elected on such a thin mandate? And what happens when those decisions involve major changes to planning, housing, or social care?

Low turnout also compounds the risk of political fragmentation. Smaller parties or single-issue groups can gain disproportionate influence, making consensus harder to achieve. In a reorganisation context, where collaboration is essential, this can slow decision-making and undermine public confidence.

Why This Matters Operationally

Governance design affects more than perception it shapes performance. Poorly defined delegations can lead to bottlenecks, with every decision escalated to committee. Conversely, overly broad delegations without safeguards can erode accountability. Both scenarios damage trust and efficiency. Research by the Royal Town Planning Institute estimates that planning delays cost the UK economy £3 billion annually, illustrating how governance missteps translate into real-world consequences.

The First 100 Days: Why They Matter More Than the Model

The first 100 days after a shadow authority is elected are not just a symbolic milestone they are the most critical period in shaping the future of a reorganised council. This window determines whether the new authority will operate with clarity and confidence or stumble into confusion and mistrust.

What Happens in the First 100 Days?

During this period, councillors and officers must establish:

• Schemes of Delegation: Who has authority to make decisions? Will officers have autonomy for routine approvals, or will everything require committee sign-off?

• Committee Structures: For example, in planning a politically sensitive area will the new council adopt a single strategic planning committee or maintain multiple local committees to preserve community representation?

• Constitutional Frameworks: The rules governing scrutiny, cabinet arrangements, and decision-making processes must be agreed early. Changing these later is notoriously difficult and politically contentious.

Why Speed and Clarity Are Essential

Delays in these decisions can paralyse operations. If councillors cannot agree on delegations, every decision risks being “called in,” creating bottlenecks that slow service delivery. Conversely, vague or overly broad delegations can erode accountability and invite public criticism.

This is not theoretical. Past reorganisations show the consequences:

• Dorset faced early challenges harmonising planning processes, leading to delays in major applications.

• Buckinghamshire, while successful in achieving financial savings, missed its target for adopting a unified Local Plan an issue that continues to affect housing delivery.

• Somerset struggled with cultural integration, where legacy practices persisted because governance frameworks were not clearly defined from the outset.

The Political Culture Factor

The first 100 days also set the tone for political behaviour. Will councillors collaborate across party lines, or will partisan divides dominate? In reorganised authorities, where representation often shifts dramatically, early cooperation is vital. Entrenched party politics can derail progress and complicate committee systems, making even routine decisions contentious.

Public Confidence Starts Here

Governance decisions made in this period influence public trust. If residents perceive confusion or delay, confidence erodes quickly. This is particularly dangerous in a climate where turnout is already low averaging 32% in 2024, with some areas below 25%. Councils cannot afford to begin life under a cloud of uncertainty.

Practical Tools for Success

Resources like the First 100 Days Playbook provide a roadmap for councillors and officers to navigate this period effectively. From drafting schemes of delegation to embedding transparent decision-making processes, these tools help avoid early missteps that can have long-term consequences.

Explore the full guidance in the First 100 Days Playbook – a practical resource for councillors and officers navigating reorganisation.

Lessons from Previous LGR Journeys

Past reorganisations offer valuable lessons both successes and cautionary tales. Buckinghamshire is often cited as a financial success story. Following its transition to a unitary authority, the council reported significant savings, validating the argument for economies of scale. These savings came from consolidating back-office functions, reducing duplication, and streamlining procurement. However, structural success did not guarantee strategic progress. Buckinghamshire missed its target for adopting a new Local Plan, a critical document for housing and infrastructure delivery. This delay illustrates how governance complexity such as harmonising planning policies and committee structures can undermine the benefits of structural change.

Dorset and Somerset faced similar challenges. While both achieved operational integration, they struggled with cultural alignment and legacy practices. For example:

• Dorset had to merge multiple planning teams, each with different processes and IT systems, leading to delays in decision-making.

• Somerset encountered resistance to new governance frameworks, with some councillors clinging to old committee norms, slowing progress on key reforms.

These examples highlight a fundamental truth: structural integration is necessary, but cultural and governance alignment sustains long-term success. Without clear governance design, reorganised councils risk inefficiency, public frustration, and reputational damage.

The Role of AI in Accelerating Clarity

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a futuristic concept it is already reshaping local government workflows. Councils are experiencing an influx of AI-generated planning representations, and officers are under pressure to process them efficiently. Rather than resisting this trend, Rowan Cole advocates for embracing AI as a practical tool to support governance and service delivery.

Here’s how AI can make a tangible difference:

• Streamline Casework: Councillors now represent wards that have grown from around 5,000 to 15,000 constituents in some reorganised authorities. AI-powered tools can help manage this surge by prioritising casework, tracking responses, and automating reminders.

• Automate Routine Tasks: From sorting consultation responses to generating standard reports, AI can free officers to focus on strategic decisions rather than administrative burdens.

• Monitor Governance Risks: AI can flag delays or bottlenecks in decision-making processes, providing early warnings when schemes of delegation or committee approvals stall.

The need for efficiency is urgent. According to the Local Government Association (2025), 95% of councils report workforce shortages, particularly in planning, social care, and finance. AI offers a cost-effective way to maintain service quality during and after reorganisation, reducing pressure on overstretched teams.

Far from replacing human judgment, AI should be seen as an assistant helping councillors and officers work smarter, not harder. In larger unitary authorities, where councillors are more disconnected from their communities, AI can also support engagement by analysing trends in public feedback and highlighting emerging issues.

Devolution: The Missing Piece

Rowan makes a crucial distinction: reorganisation without devolution is like “moving chairs on the Titanic.” Structural change alone merging councils, creating unitaries does not solve the underlying challenges of local government. Without the additional powers and funding streams that come with mayoral or combined authorities, reorganisation risks becoming an exercise in optics rather than impact. Why does this matter? Devolution brings:

• Strategic powers over transport, housing, and economic development.

• Access to investment through devolved budgets and government grants.

• Greater local autonomy, enabling councils to tailor solutions to regional needs.

Without these, reorganised councils remain constrained by the same financial pressures and statutory obligations that drove the need for change in the first place. For example, Surrey home to the UK’s fifth-largest economy outside London faces reorganisation without confirmed devolution, limiting its ability to unlock strategic investment and deliver large-scale infrastructure projects. This creates a paradox: a structurally larger authority with no additional tools to address systemic issues like SEND costs, adult social care pressures, and housing shortages.

The lesson is clear: LGR and devolution must work hand in hand. Reorganisation without empowerment is not reform it is rearrangement.

Early Warning Signs of Trouble

How can councils and stakeholders spot when an LGR programme is veering off course? Look for these red flags:

• Failure to agree schemes of delegation quickly

  If councillors cannot settle on who holds decision-making authority, operational paralysis is inevitable. Every decision risks being “called in,” slowing service delivery and eroding confidence.

• Entrenched party politics in shadow authorities

  Collaboration is critical during reorganisation. If partisan divides dominate early discussions, expect delays in setting up governance frameworks and committee structures.

• Delays in adopting a unified Local Plan

  Planning is one of the most contentious and high-profile functions of local government. Failure to harmonise planning policies early can stall housing delivery and economic growth.

• Public disengagement

  Falling turnout or low participation in consultations signals a legitimacy crisis. In England’s 2024 local elections, turnout averaged 32%, with some areas dipping below 25%. Councils starting life with such thin mandates must work harder to build trust.

Spotting these signs early allows leaders to intervene before problems become entrenched. Proactive governance design, clear communication, and strong political leadership are essential to keep the programme on track.

Conclusion: Governance First, Structure Second

Local government reorganisation is no longer a question of if it’s a question of when. The financial pressures are undeniable: spiralling costs in SEND provision, adult social care, and temporary accommodation are eroding the foundations of sustainability. In this climate, structural change feels like the obvious solution. But history tells us that diagrams and org charts alone do not deliver transformation. They create the illusion of progress without addressing the real engine of success: governance.

Governance is the architecture of trust. It is what turns complexity into clarity, silos into collaboration, and uncertainty into confidence. Without it, even the most elegant structural design will collapse under the weight of ambiguity and competing priorities. With it, councils can navigate change with purpose and resilience.

As Rowan rightly observes, “There is no price you can put on democracy.” Governance is not a bureaucratic burden it is the safeguard of democratic accountability and the enabler of effective decision-making. Investing in governance design from day one is not just prudent; it is essential. And in an era where technology can amplify human capability, leveraging tools like AI for scenario modelling, risk analysis, and stakeholder engagement may be the most cost-effective way to protect what matters most: public trust.

The message is clear: get governance right first, and structure will follow naturally. Anything else risks building on sand.