Update on Local Government Reorganisation
As regular readers know, we are by no means fans of Local Government Reorganisation. We are, however, pragmatists and acknowledge the inevitability of the process and the need to make the best of it.
First, a brief recap –
- A while back, central government – in the shape of the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) – announced the government’s intention to rationalise the structure of local government in Essex by merging councils to create fewer councils, each responsible for all local services in their area, rather than being split between the local council and county council. Hence the term ‘unitary’.
- Proposals of how best to do this were invited from all the councils in Essex (county, unitary, borough, district, and the existing two small unitaries). This produced four options:
- a plan for 3 unitary authorities was put forward by Essex County Council, Braintree District Council, and Epping Forest District Council;
- two versions of a 4 unitary structure, one proposed by Thurrock Council and the other by Rochford District Council;
- and a plan for 5 unitary authorities proposed by the other ten councils, including Uttlesford.
- Earlier this year, the government gave its backing to the proposal for 5 new councils to replace the existing 15. This was backed by two-thirds of the councils in Essex.
- Essex County Council objected and the Conservative leader of the council said the council would consider taking legal action against the Secretary of State.
Since then –
- In the May 2026 local elections, Reform took control of Essex County Council. One of their first actions was to consider seeking a judicial review of the government’s decision to go with 5 unitary authorities (5UA) in preference to the County Council’s own proposal of 3UA.
- On 19 June, Cllr Peter Harris, Reform Leader of Essex County Council, confirmed they would take legal action, saying: “With our strong mandate from the people of Essex, we’ve been unequivocal in opposing these costly, ill‑judged proposals that risk widening the gap between residents and their representatives.”
Our thoughts –
- That statement from the Reform Leader of Essex County Council is at odds with reality. He talks of a strong mandate yet chooses to ignore the 2/3rds majority among the councils in favour of the 5UA plan.
- He says it risks “widening the gap between residents and their representatives.” Yet minimising the gap and keeping a sense of place and connection between residents and their representatives is one of the strengths of 5UA.
- The main reason cited for challenging the decision is that the Secretary of State ignored civil servants’ recommendation about the relative financial viability of the 3, 4 and 5 models. But no one can say with certainty what will save money and how quickly.
- Experience shows that where shire counties have been converted to unitary structure the outcomes vary widely, with high initial restructuring costs often taking years to offset. Detail studies caution against assuming all mergers yield equal dividends.
- Undertaking reorganisation on this scale has to be about more than just saving money, especially when opinions and data vary widely on what those savings will be. That’s why we support 5UA. It is the least worst option for the residents of Uttlesford and uses common sense to achieve a balance between scale and localism.
Finally, a dose of reality –
- A judicial review is intended to examine how a decision was made, i.e. was it legally compliant with the procedure laid down to arrive at that decision. It is not an opportunity to revisit the relative merits of the four schemes considered for Essex. That has already been done, in detail and at length.
- Ministers routinely overrule and disregard civil service advice. Ultimate decision-making power and accountability lie with the elected Secretary of State. Civil servants are employed to provide objective, evidence-based options and point out potential risks, but they do not make final policy.
- The odds are heavily stacked against a successful judicial review. Whatever it is the new Reform administration at Essex County Council is seeking to achieve, challenging the government looks likely to be a waste of money.
Hmm!
Much tho’ simple opposition to the principle of the 5UA model is probably futile, that the devil is in the detail is a pretty safe bet; rushing in as per the current schedule is thus likely to produce something seriously sub-optimal.
I also have to take issue with the
” …minimising the gap and keeping a sense of place and connection between residents and their representatives is one of the strengths of 5UA” argument. Certainly retention of at least some ‘sense of place’ was a strength of the 5UA model, but fewer per-capita representatives with responsibilities spanning a wider area does indeed feel like “widening the gap”.
How about some consultation on the possibilities rather than top-down and potentially very expensive What You Get is What You’re Given? Maybe even Citizens Assemblies??
FWIW, here’s something I prepared earlier – the then intention being to spark some debate before expensive mistakes are made…
‘ Could local government be improved? Almost certainly.
Is a simplistic top-down application of a one-size fits all model a good idea? Probably not.
This particular initiative was advanced by the outgoing Tory Government, enthusiastically adopted by the current Labour Government, and welcomed with open arms by Essex County Council, who duly applied to ‘defer’ the May2025 local elections. Nine months later, having advanced a frankly bizarre 3-Unitary model, they invited Steve Reed to make the decision to defer the 2026 elections, and seem to have been piqued when he declined to do so (he also had the temerity to reject their preferred approach in favour of the slightly less improbable 5-Unitary model).
Their threatened legal challenge has been picked up by the new administration at Essex, and Harlow District Council are also challenging the re-organisation. (There are no prizes for guessing who’s going to be paying for all these lawyers).
You may note that it’s all still hugely disruptive, frighteningly short on detail and totally untrammelled by realistic costings or performance indicators. To describe it as an ideological leap in the dark would not be unreasonable – indeed, cynics might say it has more to do with cost-saving than with devolution (& even that is unlikely to be realised on any recognisable timetable).
Underlying everything is an implicit ‘big is beautiful’ model. However even this doesn’t really hang together. The ‘big ticket’ items – Education, Adult Social Care, Children’s Services , Highways – account for maybe three quarters of Essex’s annual budget. Replicating this across five new authorities is hardly likely to produce either efficiencies or cost savings.
The challenge for any reorganisation of Local Government is to balance coordination and economies of scale on the one hand, with responsiveness and local accountability on the other. Thus, why not try something simpler? Rather than cutting out the District Councils, retain them largely as they are, today, abolish the County Council as an entity, and replace it with an Assembly comprised of delegates from each of the districts. Say 5 from each of the 12 districts and 2 pre-existing unitaries (making suitable adjustments for population). These delegates are still accountable to their districts and their local electorates
Thereafter, the apparatus of government would still proceed with reach and responsibilities now coordinated at the most suitable level as determined by the Assembly, with appropriately devolved budgets. Education probably still county-wide, Highways possibly likewise (but please do something about the existing Essex Highways operation). Housing, maybe a District responsibility. Adult social care? Really don’t know, but I’m sure my district delegate would be better placed to make that call. As always the devil will be in the detail.
Implementation costs? Minimal,
Efficiency? Could be enhanced.
Coordination? Likely improved.
Democratic accountability? Definitely improved.
And if you want to call the head honcho a Mayor, be my guest.’