Local Government Reorganisation: Opportunity or Overreach?

The Government’s ambitious programme of local government reorganisation (LGR) is reshaping the structure of councils across England. At its core, the initiative seeks to simplify governance by replacing the traditional two-tier system where county and district councils operate separately with unitary authorities that deliver all local services under a single umbrella.

This is not the first time England has attempted such a transformation. Previous waves of reorganisation in the 1970s and 1990s were met with mixed results, and many of the lessons from those periods remain relevant today. What sets the current programme apart is its scale, speed, and the political context in which it is unfolding amid fiscal pressures, workforce shortages, and a renewed push for devolution.

Yet as proposals roll out and elections are postponed, fundamental questions are mounting:

• Is this reform evidence-based?

• Is it wanted by the public?

• Will it deliver better outcomes for residents and staff?

The answers are far from clear. While ministers argue that larger, streamlined councils will be more efficient and better placed to deliver services, critics warn that the reforms risk centralising power, eroding local identity, and disrupting frontline services.

As one senior officer in a reorganising council put it:

“We’re being asked to dismantle decades of local relationships and rebuild them overnight. The ambition is admirable, but the pace and assumptions are deeply worrying.”

The tension between strategic ambition and local nuance is at the heart of the debate. For some, LGR represents a long-overdue opportunity to modernise and rationalise local government. For others, it feels like a top-down imposition driven more by Whitehall’s desire for control than by local needs or evidence.

What Is Local Government Reorganisation?

Local Government Reorganisation is a central pillar of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which aims to streamline governance, reduce duplication, and unlock efficiency savings across the public sector. Under the current system, many areas operate with a two-tier structure: county councils are responsible for services like education, social care, and highways, while district councils handle housing, planning, and waste collection. This division can lead to confusion for residents, duplication of effort, and inefficiencies in service delivery. LGR proposes to replace this model with unitary authorities single councils responsible for all local services. The Government has invited councils in 21 areas to submit proposals, with elections for new authorities expected in 2027, or earlier in priority areas such as Surrey.

The preferred model is for unitary councils serving populations of 500,000 or more. This benchmark, however, has become a flashpoint for criticism. Many argue that it is arbitrary, unsupported by robust evidence, and potentially damaging to local democracy.

As Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen, Chair of the District Councils’ Network, noted:

“The Government’s insistence on mega-councils of half a million people is not backed by any credible research. It risks breaking up historic counties and creating councils that are too remote from the communities they serve.”

Indeed, the Government has been criticised for relying on outdated modelling notably a 2020 PwC report commissioned by the County Councils Network to justify its approach. That report, while influential, was based on pre-pandemic data and did not account for the surge in demand for adult social care, SEND provision, and temporary accommodation that has since reshaped local government priorities.

Moreover, a promised independent study to assess the optimal scale for unitary councils was never commissioned, raising concerns about the transparency and rigour of the policy-making process. In short, while the goals of LGR efficiency, clarity, and empowerment are laudable, the means of achieving them remain contested. The sector is left grappling with a reform agenda that is bold in ambition but, some argue, fragile in foundation.

Public Opinion: Disengaged and Divided

Despite the scale and significance of the proposed changes, public awareness of local government reorganisation remains strikingly low. A 2025 Ipsos/LGIU survey revealed that 63% of English adults were not following the reorganisation agenda closely or at all. This is particularly concerning given the potential impact on how local services are delivered, how councils are structured, and how residents are represented.

In newly formed combined authority areas, the disconnect is even more pronounced. Fewer than half of residents were aware that mayoral elections were taking place suggesting that even in areas undergoing active change, engagement and understanding are lagging.

When asked about their preferred council structure:

• 39% favoured the existing two-tier system, indicating a preference for retaining localised governance.

• 26% supported the move to unitary authorities, suggesting some appetite for simplification.

• 35% were unsure or indifferent, highlighting a significant portion of the population that either lacks information or feels disconnected from the debate.

This lack of consensus suggests that reorganisation is not being driven by grassroots demand, but rather by top-down policy objectives. The Government’s narrative of efficiency and modernisation may resonate with some stakeholders, but it appears to be failing to capture the public imagination.

A separate YouGov poll reinforced this disconnect. When asked whether local elections should be delayed accommodating new arrangements, 43% of respondents said elections should proceed as normal, while only 27% supported postponements. This reflects a broader concern that democratic processes are being sidelined in favour of administrative convenience. As one local government commentator put it:

“You can’t build legitimacy on a foundation of confusion. If residents don’t understand what’s changing or why, the risk is not just disengagement it’s active distrust.”

The implications are serious. Without public buy-in, even well-intentioned reforms can falter. Councils may struggle to communicate the benefits of reorganisation, and residents may feel alienated from decisions that affect their daily lives from bin collections to housing policy.

Moreover, the lack of public awareness raises questions about how consultation has been conducted, and whether communities have had a genuine opportunity to shape the future of their local governance. In some areas, consultation exercises have been criticised for being rushed, poorly advertised, or overly technical failing to engage residents in a meaningful way. In short, while the Government may see reorganisation as a strategic imperative, the public response suggests a disconnect between policy ambition and civic reality. Bridging that gap will require not just better communication, but a more inclusive and transparent approach to reform.

The Case For Reorganisation

Supporters of local government reorganisation argue that the current two-tier system where county and district councils operate separately is no longer fit for purpose. They see the move to unitary authorities as a necessary evolution to meet the demands of modern governance, financial sustainability, and integrated service delivery.

1. Eliminating Duplication and Saving Money

One of the most frequently cited benefits is the potential to eliminate duplication across tiers. In two-tier areas, services like planning, housing, waste collection, and economic development are often split between councils, leading to confusion for residents, inefficiencies, and overlapping costs.

A 2020 PwC report commissioned by the County Councils Network estimated that reorganisation could deliver £2.9 billion in savings over five years, primarily through reduced overheads, streamlined management structures, and shared service models. While critics have questioned the age and assumptions of this data, it remains a cornerstone of the Government’s financial case.

2. Improving Accountability

Under the current system, residents often struggle to understand which council is responsible for which service. This lack of clarity can undermine trust and engagement. A unitary model offers a single point of accountability, making it easier for residents to navigate local services and for councillors to take ownership of outcomes.

As one senior officer noted:

“When bins aren’t collected or planning decisions are delayed, residents don’t care which tier is responsible they just want answers. A unitary council removes that ambiguity.”

3. Easing Workforce Pressures

Local government faces acute workforce challenges, including recruitment difficulties, leadership churn, and rising demand for specialist skills. Reorganisation is seen as a way to rationalise leadership structures, reduce duplication in senior roles, and create more coherent career pathways. By consolidating HR, finance, and IT functions, councils can also free up capacity to invest in frontline services and transformation programmes.

4. Enabling Better Integration of Services

Many of the most complex challenges facing councils such as housing, adult social care, and public health require joined-up thinking across departments and agencies. In two-tier areas, this integration is often hampered by structural silos. Unitary authorities are better placed to coordinate services holistically, aligning housing with social care, planning with transport, and economic development with education. This is particularly important in areas with high levels of deprivation or complex demographic needs.

5. Supporting Devolution

Reorganisation is also seen as a stepping stone to greater devolution. Larger, more strategic councils are better positioned to take on powers from Westminster, negotiate directly with central government, and deliver region-wide initiatives. The Government has made clear that unitary status is a prerequisite for many devolution deals, including the creation of combined authorities and elected mayors. For councils seeking more autonomy, reorganisation is not just an option it’s a gateway. Councillor David Fothergill, who led Somerset’s transition to a unitary authority, captured the dual nature of the challenge:

“No change was not an option. The case for change was built on financial sustainability, service delivery challenges, and governance complexity. But transition is only half the story transformation is where the real gains lie.”

His comments reflect a broader view among reform advocates: that reorganisation is not an end in itself, but a platform for deeper change. The real prize lies in redesigning services, empowering communities, and building councils that are fit for the future.

The Case Against Reorganisation

While the Government presents local government reorganisation as a rational and necessary step toward efficiency and modernisation, critics argue that the risks and unintended consequences are being underestimated and in some cases, ignored altogether.

1. Larger Councils May Be Less Responsive

One of the most persistent concerns is that larger unitary authorities may become too remote from the communities they serve. In rural or geographically dispersed areas, residents fear that local identity and responsiveness will be lost in favour of centralised decision-making.

As one district councillor put it:

“We’re not just talking about merging spreadsheets we’re talking about dismantling decades of local knowledge, relationships, and trust.”

Smaller councils often have deep-rooted connections with their communities, and critics argue that these ties risk being severed in the pursuit of scale.

2. The 500,000 Population Benchmark Is Arbitrary

The Government’s insistence on a minimum population size of 500,000 for new unitary authorities has been widely criticised as arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. There is no clear rationale for why this figure has been chosen, and many fear it could lead to the break-up of historic counties or the creation of councils that are too large to function effectively.

The District Councils’ Network has called for a more flexible, locally-led approach, warning that rigid population thresholds could undermine local democracy and identity.

3. Democratic Representation May Suffer

With fewer councils and larger geographies, there will inevitably be fewer councillors representing more people. This raises concerns about democratic deficit, particularly in areas where residents already feel disconnected from decision-making.

Larger wards could dilute the ability of councillors to engage meaningfully with constituents, and there are fears that marginalised voices may be further excluded from the political process.

4. Transition Risks Disruption

The process of reorganisation itself is complex, costly, and potentially destabilising. Merging IT systems, harmonising pay and conditions, aligning service delivery models, and managing staff uncertainty all require significant time and resources.

If the transition is rushed or underfunded as some fear it will be there is a real risk of service disruption, staff attrition, and loss of institutional memory. In areas already grappling with financial pressures and workforce shortages, this could have serious consequences for residents.

5. A Distraction from Urgent Priorities

Perhaps most worryingly, critics argue that reorganisation risks becoming a distraction from the real challenges facing local government including housing shortages, rising demand for adult social care, and the cost-of-living crisis.

As one chief executive commented anonymously:

“We’re firefighting on multiple fronts this is not the time to be redesigning the fire station.”

There is concern that the energy and attention required to deliver structural reform could divert leadership focus away from frontline delivery and long-term strategic planning.

Emeritus Professor Colin Copus, a leading academic voice on local governance, offered a stark warning:

“The wounds from previous reorganisations are still raw. There’s a real danger that we’re repeating mistakes under the guise of efficiency.”

His words reflect a broader scepticism within the sector: that the push for reorganisation is being driven more by Whitehall’s desire for control and cost-cutting than by a genuine commitment to localism or public service improvement.

The Data Behind Reorganisation – And Its Flaws

At the heart of the Government’s case for local government reorganisation lies a single, influential document: a 2020 report by PwC, commissioned by the County Councils Network (CCN). This report estimated that replacing two-tier systems with unitary authorities could generate £2.9 billion in savings over five years, primarily through reduced duplication and streamlined service delivery.

However, the District Councils’ Network (DCN) has strongly criticised the Government’s reliance on this report, arguing that it is outdated, narrow in scope, and insufficiently robust to justify such sweeping reforms.

As Cllr Sam Chapman-Allen, Chair of the DCN, put it:

“It is alarming that there is so little evidence to justify the Government’s requirement for mega councils. The PwC report is not remotely up to date. It predates the surge in demand for adult social care, SEND, and temporary accommodation.”

This critique highlights a broader concern: that the Government is pursuing structural reform without a comprehensive, independent evidence base. According to the DCN, several key gaps remain:

• No independent research has been commissioned to validate the 500,000 population benchmark or explore alternative models.

• No post-implementation assessments have been conducted in areas that have already transitioned such as Somerset, Cumbria, and North Yorkshire leaving policymakers without real-world data on costs, service impact, or workforce outcomes.

• A proposed study to evaluate the optimal scale for unitary councils was never commissioned, despite a pre-market tender exercise being launched.

This lack of rigorous evaluation raises serious questions about the transparency, accountability, and strategic coherence of the reorganisation programme. Without up-to-date data, councils are being asked to make irreversible decisions based on assumptions that may no longer hold true.

As one policy analyst noted:

“We’re building a new governance model on foundations laid five years ago. In local government, that’s a lifetime. The world has changed our data should have too.”

Emerging Workstreams and Challenges

The reorganisation programme has triggered two major strategic workstreams:

1. Devolution to Strategic Authorities – These are larger bodies covering populations of around 1.5 million, designed to take on broader powers from central government, including transport, skills, and economic development.

2. Creation of Unitary Councils – These involve the consolidation of district and county functions into single-tier authorities, typically serving populations of 500,000 or more.

Beneath these headline reforms lie a series of complex operational workstreams, each requiring careful coordination, stakeholder engagement, and resource planning:

• Service Harmonisation

  Councils must align policies and delivery models across previously separate authorities. This includes standardising council tax rates, waste collection schedules, planning frameworks, and housing strategies often in areas with very different local contexts.

  
  

• Workforce Transition

  Staff face uncertainty around job roles, pay scales, and organisational culture. TUPE protections must be honoured, but the emotional and practical impact of reorganisation on the workforce is significant. Leadership teams must manage morale, retention, and recruitment during a period of upheaval.

  
  

• ICT and HR Integration

  Merging digital infrastructure and back-office systems is a major challenge. Councils often use different platforms for finance, HR, and case management, and integration requires both technical expertise and investment. Cybersecurity, data migration, and interoperability are key risks.

  
  

• Public Engagement

  With public awareness low and trust fragile, councils must work hard to communicate the rationale for change, consult meaningfully, and build legitimacy. This includes engaging residents, staff, councillors, and partners in shaping the new authority’s identity and priorities.

  
  

• Contracting and Insourcing

  Councils must review existing contracts many of which span multiple years and jurisdictions and decide whether to renew, renegotiate, or bring services in-house. This has implications for procurement, legal compliance, and service continuity.

The Local Government Association (LGA) has warned that councils face a “daunting challenge” to ensure new authorities are “safe and legal” by vesting day. This includes meeting statutory obligations, maintaining service standards, and ensuring democratic governance structures are in place.

As one LGA advisor noted:

“Reorganisation is not just a technical exercise it’s a human one. It affects how people work, how residents live, and how communities feel represented. Getting it wrong isn’t an option.”

Conclusion: Reform with Responsibility

Local government reorganisation presents both opportunities and risks, and its success will depend not just on structural changes, but on the quality of leadership, planning, and public engagement that accompanies them.

Done well, reorganisation could lead to leaner, more accountable councils, better equipped to deliver integrated services and respond to complex challenges. It could unlock efficiency savings, reduce duplication, and pave the way for greater devolution giving local areas more control over transport, housing, and economic development.

But done poorly, it risks alienating communities, disrupting services, and undermining trust in local democracy. The evidence base underpinning the reforms has been called into question, public awareness remains low, and many councils are already stretched thin by rising demand and shrinking budgets.

With public opinion divided, data limitations exposed, and workstreams underway, the sector must now act with sufficient attention, urgency, and care. The operational workstreams ranging from service harmonisation to workforce transition are not peripheral tasks; they are the critical enablers of success. They must be resourced properly, planned thoroughly, and given enough time to facilitate a reorganisation that genuinely delivers on the aspirations and opportunities LGR represents.

As one chief executive recently remarked:

“Reorganisation is not just about lines on a map it’s about people, place, and purpose. If we lose sight of that, we risk building something efficient but soulless.”

Ultimately, the success of local government reorganisation will not be measured by the number of councils merged or the size of the savings achieved. It will be measured by whether residents feel better served, better represented, and better connected to the institutions that shape their everyday lives.