Source

Rt. Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, Prime Minister

Rt. Hon Steve Reed OBE MP, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government

Sent by email

Dear Prime Minister and Secretary of State,

Local Government Reorganisation in England

We write, as members of the County Councils Network (CCN) Management Committee and Leaders of affected member councils across England, to express our concern on the implications of recent decisions on local government reorganisation and, critically, the significant risks this programme of reform now poses to the delivery of essential services to our residents and most vulnerable communities.

County councils engaged in this process in good faith. We were asked to develop proposals rooted in scale, sustainability and service resilience, while avoiding unnecessary fragmentation and complex boundary changes. We did so on the understanding that evidence would be robustly and consistently assessed against the Government’s own criteria.

Instead, the decisions on March 25th 2026 to create 15 new unitary councils across four areas have set in train an experimental approach to reorganisation that bears all the hallmarks of a set of short-term political choices, not a coherent or consistent application of the government’s own framework.

The departure from the statutory criteria without clear, transparent reasoning and published supporting evidence is deeply troubling and raises serious doubts over the robustness of the decisions taken. Credibility and trust in the process is further eroded by the imposition of a top-down proposal in Sussex, previously rejected by local authorities.

Despite requests, the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government is unwilling to disclose departmental analysis to justify how ministers reached the conclusion that they were ‘satisfied’ proposals can be delivered on a sustainable financial basis. Given the unprecedented degree of disaggregation and fundamentally untested nature of boundary change, we strongly question whether ministers have fully and sufficiently evaluated proposals against the public service criterion. 

Moreover, the scale of fragmentation, combined with complex boundary changes and an enormously ambitious timetable for delivery are causing serious concerns from our senior staff about the capacity of the system to deliver safe and legal services to the timetable proposed.

With new administrations elected in councils across the Devolution Priority Programme areas, the government must immediately disclose the evidence and departmental analysis relating to decisions already taken. It is unreasonable to expect these administrations to respond to the decisions without having the departmental analysis which led to their selection. They, and the wider sector, should have access to this information and evidence necessary to assess the  integrity of decisions and the feasibility of implementation. 

For the remaining areas awaiting decisions, if this pattern of large-scale fragmentation and complex boundary change, at odds with the government criteria, is repeated, this will create a pattern of reform that is more costly, less stable and less effective than the current two-tier system.

The creation of more undersized, fragmented unitary authorities will weaken economies of scale, increase administrative overheads, and place additional strain at a time when councils already face severe financial challenges and competing service pressures. It will jeopardise the integrity of essential services, particularly adult and children’s social care. Critically, it will render implementation timescales wholly unachievable and require hundreds of millions of central government funding to support transition.

These are not abstract concerns. They represent a direct threat to vulnerable residents, to the sustainability of new councils, and to the deliverability of the government’s welcome reforms to children’s services and special educational needs and disabilities in large swathes of the country. 

County councils stand ready to deliver reform that strengthens services and supports communities. But that reform must be credible, consistent, transparent and rooted in the principles set out at the beginning of the process.

The nature of the decisions taken, potential legal challenges, and considerable questions surrounding the future direction and stability of the government itself seriously undermine whether this can be achieved in the current circumstances. Having diverted so far from the original aims and underpinning statutory criteria, uncertainty is deepening, confidence is eroding, and the implementation of reorganisation is becoming even more complex, more contested, and more costly. 

Within this context, the government must now seriously engage the sector on the integrity of the decision-making process, alongside the feasibility of delivery within the government’s self-imposed timescales. Proceeding with further decisions at pace, and on the basis of an approach that is increasingly perceived as inconsistent and politically driven, risks embedding significant long-term consequences.

At a time of a highly uncertain political environment nationally, decisions of this scale and permanence require even greater transparency, consistency and evidence. With ministerial decisions due before the summer recess, structural reform cannot be shaped around short￾political considerations nor assumptions that future governments, ministers or administrations will necessarily continue in the same direction. The implications of these reforms extend well beyond the current political cycle and the hiatus over the future leadership of government only strengthens the case for decisions to be demonstrably impartial, consistent and rooted in long￾term public value. 

We would welcome urgent engagement on this to ensure that certainty can be provided to the sector and confidence in this process can be restored before any further decisions are taken. 

Yours sincerely,

Julian Brazil, the Liberal Democrat leader of Devon county council, said the proposals preferred by Labour were the “archetypal gerrymander”, adding: “They are trying to expand Labour cities as big as they can get in order to maintain some kind of control.”

Labour ‘jeopardising social care by ripping up councils’

Max Kendix www.thetimes.com

In a letter to Sir Keir Starmer, local authority leaders say the proposed boundary changes are politically driven and will cost money rather than save it

Labour is ripping up local government for “politically driven” reasons, putting social care in jeopardy and costing taxpayers as much as £1 billion extra, a majority of affected council leaders have claimed.

The government is scrapping county and district councils across England to create as many as 60 new local authorities in an effort to “simplify” local government.

However, council leaders have warned that the way Labour has chosen to move forward with the break-ups will create significant extra costs.

Ministers had committed to the new councils having at least 500,000 residents, but are now prioritising expanding city boundaries and opting for smaller council populations.

In a letter to Sir Keir Starmer, 19 council leaders accused the prime minister of “short-term political choices” concerning the proposed boundaries, which are preferred by mostly urban Labour MPs. Ministers are facing legal challenges to the process, which risks delaying the changes.

The council leaders, a mixture of Reform, Conservative and Liberal Democrat, argue that the moves will “jeopardise the integrity of essential services, particularly adult and children’s social care”.

Analysis commissioned by the County Councils Network suggests that there would be “no long-term efficiency savings” from the smaller council sizes. The government had cited the same organisation’s analysis to argue that its reorganisation drive would result in savings.

Julian Brazil, the Liberal Democrat leader of Devon county council, said the proposals preferred by Labour were the “archetypal gerrymander”, adding: “They are trying to expand Labour cities as big as they can get in order to maintain some kind of control.”

Stephen Atkinson, the Reform leader of Lancashire county council, said Labour’s preferred option for splitting up the area would cost £90 million with little reward.

“People will fall between the gaps and there’ll be serious consequences for those people and the care they receive and the support they receive,” he said. “The government is in a bunker. It sees any conversation around their policies as a political attack, instead of seeing it as the sector being concerned.

“Local government reorganisation is a disaster waiting to happen unless the government starts to recognise the complexity, the challenge and the vulnerability involved in this process.”

The letter from councils says that “the government must now seriously engage the sector on the integrity of the decision-making process, alongside the feasibility of delivery within the government’s self-imposed timescales [of reorganising everywhere by 2028]”.

It adds: “Proceeding with further decisions at pace, and on the basis of an approach that is increasingly perceived as inconsistent and politically driven, risks embedding significant long-term consequences.”

The leaders argue that a potential Labour leadership race means the rush to make decisions about reorganisation is less justified.

A government spokesman said: “We don’t recognise these figures. In fact, local government reorganisation will save taxpayers’ money by streamlining services and boosting regional growth so we can put more cash in peoples’ pockets.

“Our plans will make public services like social care work better for local people, alongside speeding up the construction of vital new homes and infrastructure.”

Background

Three quarters of county councils in line to be reorganised have signed a letter to the Prime Minister, arguing the government’s approach to reorganisation now poses a ‘direct threat to the most vulnerable’ and the sustainability of new councils. 

In March, the government announced its decision to reorganise councils in Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk and Hampshire, abolishing both county and district councils in those areas and replacing them with unitary councils.

Despite setting out a statutory criteria for decisions at the onset of the programme, including a principle to create new unitaries covering populations of over 500,000 and avoiding the unnecessary fragmentation of care services, the letter argues that the decisions are at odds with the guidance: splitting those counties into multiple smaller unitary councils in each location.

The March decisions will create 15 new unitary councils in just four counties. In Suffolk and Norfolk the county council put forward a proposal for a single county in each area, whereas in Essex and Hampshire the county councils proposed three unitaries for each county. In all four counties, the government took the most radical proposals to create three unitaries in each of Suffolk and Norfolk, four in Hampshire and five in Essex. In three of the four areas, complex changes to existing boundaries are required. 

Government will decide on the number of unitary councils in the remaining 16 counties later this summer. Ahead of those decisions, the County Councils Network (CCN) has written to the Prime Minister warning ‘if this pattern of large-scale fragmentation and complex boundary change, at odds with the government criteria, is repeated, this will create a pattern of reform that is more costly, less stable and less effective than the current two-tier System’.

The letter was endorsed by cross party members of CCN’s management committee. All county councils and the CCN unitary member, North Lincolnshire, impacted by the March decisions and those due be decided on in July, were invited to sign the letter based on their local circumstances. In total, 16 out of those councils signed the letter.

The councils argue that the creation of smaller, fragmented unitary authorities will increase severe financial pressures, jeopardise the delivery of essential adult and children’s services and require ‘hundreds of millions of central government funding to support transition’. As a result, they warn that some services may not be functioning on day one of these new councils coming into inception in April 2028.

See this companion post for the full letter.

The report, which has been published following a Local Government Association (LGA) Corporate Peer Challenge, describes the authority as a “values-led and learning organisation” with a clear commitment to moving forward with “real purpose”. 

Chris Collman www.devonairradio.com

The peer team, made up of senior councillors and officers from across local government, spent four days in Devon in March speaking to councillors, staff and partners.  

Their findings recognise the strong progress that the council has made in recent years, improving services and investing in its workforce to help build a council that is better placed to respond to local needs and work with communities. 

It highlighted how staff “consistently spoke positively about the change” in the organisation’s culture, describing a workplace where people feel “trusted and empowered” and proud of the work they do. 

This is already starting to translate into stronger services and better outcomes. The report points to improvements in key areas including workforce stability, partnership working and community engagement, all of which are critical to delivering high-quality services for residents. 

The review acknowledges the leadership at the council, including a “strong and trusting relationship” between the Leader and Chief Executive, and the “energy, enthusiasm and constructive challenge” provided by Cabinet members. 

In services that have faced significant pressure, including children’s services, the report provides encouraging feedback, confirming that Devon has “the capacity and capability to improve itself”. It recognises both the progress made and the potential to go further, providing greater confidence for vulnerable children, young people and their families. 

The review also highlights that the council is becoming more outward-looking and increasingly focused on its role in partnership working across Devon and beyond to support shared priorities such as economic growth, health and wellbeing, and stronger communities. It also recognised that the authority is taking a more purposeful approach to co-production and strengthening its relationships with partners and communities, working together to design and deliver services that meet their needs. 

As part of the process, the council will now develop an action plan to respond to the recommendations in the report, ensuring continued focus on improving services and delivering positive outcomes for Devon’s residents.

Devon and Cornwall Police has been rated as inadequate in the areas of safeguarding adults and children, and investigating crime.

His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) graded the force’s performance across eight areas in January, finding it to be adequate in two areas, requires improvement in four areas and inadequate in two areas.

Archie Farmer, Chloe Parkman www.bbc.co.uk

The inspectorate said responding to calls for service and preventing crime effectively had improved, but concerns remain over how it investigates crime and safeguards vulnerable people.

Chief constable James Vaughan said he “welcomed the findings”, and he was “confident” the force would “continue to improve our service”.

The inspectorate found the force continues to prevent and deter crime and antisocial behaviour well.

The PEEL (Police Effectiveness, Efficiency and Legitimacy) inspection did not conclude Devon and Cornwall Police was good or outstanding in any of the eight categories.

Among concerns HMICFRS added there remains a need for the force to improve how effectively it records crime and how it monitors preventative orders.

His Majesty’s inspector of constabulary Kathryn Stone said she was “satisfied” with some aspects of the performance of the police force in keeping people safe, reducing crime and providing an effective service to victims.

“The force has made improvements since our last inspection, particularly in how it responds to calls for service from the public,” Stone said.

‘Monitor performance’

However, she said its ability to carry out “prompt and effective criminal investigations on behalf of victims is still a cause of concern”.

“It is disappointing that the force still hasn’t made enough progress on a previous area for improvement about how it manages medium-risk domestic abuse cases. This is a concern the force needs to address quickly,” Stone said.

She said progress was being made particularly in its financial management, control room and prevention work.

“Continued focus on developing the workforce, improving investigation standards and safeguarding vulnerable people will be essential for sustained improvement,” she added.

“I expect to see more progress in the areas we have set out, and I will continue to monitor performance.”

Vaughan said: “Whilst we have delivered sustained improvements since 2022 and the force has now been fully removed from enhanced monitoring, there remains more to do to improve outcomes for victims and ensure consistent safeguarding standards.”

Police said the report highlighted “significant progress” in contact services, including 999 and 101 call handling and the management of sex and dangerous offenders.

It accepted outcomes for victims still required “significant improvement”, adding it needed to improve how effectively it records crime and how it monitors preventative orders.

Vaughan said plans were under way to move the force’s victim care unit to police headquarters, “helping ensure victims remain at the centre of our work every day”.

“I am confident that, with the dedication of our people, we will continue to improve our service,” he said. “Many of our domestic abuse cases do lead to positive outcomes, but I recognise we are still letting some victims down.

“I have agreed with the commissioner to stay in post for as long as she requires the stability provided by my leadership.”