Ending well episode 1 - The Governance of Endings: Why 'Ending well' matters

A Local Government Reform perspective podcast: governance lessons from local government reorganisation

Series Overview

This three-part podcast series explores the governance dimensions of local government reorganisation (LGR) through the lens of 'ending well' - examining what it means for dissolving councils to discharge their final governance obligations with the same rigour as their founding ones. The series draws on research and lived experience to argue that the quality of an ending directly shapes the effectiveness of what follows.

Amardeep is a Partner at Trowers & Hamlins LLP and serves as National Head of Public Sector, advising government, public bodies and businesses on transformation and critical projects. He has extensive cross-sector experience, including digital technology, AI ethics, transport, health and regeneration, and currently supports organisations in implementing safe and ethical AI systems. He is also a Visiting Professor of Law at Aston University.

Professor Catherine Staite is a researcher and consultant specialising in leadership and governance in local government, working with Grant Thornton as an independent expert on governance and value for money. She previously led INLOGOV at the University of Birmingham and has held senior roles at the Office for Public Management and the Audit Commission. Her work focuses on strengthening governance, leadership and citizen engagement in public services.

Episode 1 - The Governance of Endings: Why 'Ending Well' Matters

Core Theme

Local government reorganisation (LGR) is rarely just an administrative exercise. When councils are restructured - through statutory structural change orders, the creation of shadow authorities, and the complex mechanics of TUPE transfers and service continuity - something more profound is also underway. Existing institutions, often with decades of democratic history, are being deliberately wound down. That process of ending is legally mandated, yet for the people within those organisations, it can feel deeply counterintuitive, even loss-laden.

This episode explores what we call the paradox of ending: the idea that councils must actively dismantle themselves as a precondition for new governance arrangements to begin well. Far from being a bureaucratic footnote, how an organisation ends shapes everything that follows. But endings carry real governance risks. Chief among them is the risk that urgency crowds out reflection - that the pressure of deadlines and transition timelines causes poor decisions to be made, bad assumptions to be embedded, and critical learning to be lost. What gets rushed in the closing stages of one institution can quietly corrupt the foundations of the next.

In short: endings matter. And getting them right is a governance challenge as significant as any that comes after.

Key Questions to Consider 

Q: How do you define the governance of endings in LGR?

It is important to distinguish between the legal event of dissolution and the governance reality, which is far messier. The need for good governance does not stop when a vesting order is made, rather it intensifies. Governance is fundamentally about accountability, transparency and purpose, so I would argue that 'ending well' means maintaining all three right up to the final day, not treating them as optional extra once the decision to reorganise has been taken.

Q: Why is an intentional ending materially consequential, not just symbolic?

Drawing on my involvement in evaluating the 2009 unitaries, and the observation of subsequent reorganisations, I conclude that rushed transitions embed poor assumptions into successor bodies, including about finances, culture, and the performance of key services. Decisions made in the final months of a council's life have a long-lasting impact on the new institution. The Northamptonshire case, between 2018 and 2021, is a stark illustration of this point because the successor council, West Northamptonshire Council spent much of its first four formative years rebuilding public trust in the shadow of its predecessor's failures.

Q: What are common governance failures when councils approach dissolution?

The idea of ‘groupthink’ is often quoted as a major problem in times of change, and it may seem a somewhat simplistic diagnosis of complex behaviours, but it is a real risk. It leads to a failure to challenge accepted wisdom, face up to risks, take note of evidence in real time and learn from elsewhere. The combination of ‘groupthink’ and ‘not-invented-here-syndrome’ leads to failure. The reluctance of members to heed officer advice, and opaque decision-making are recurring causes of significant problems. There is a major risk of political leaders becoming distracted from their responsibilities to the outgoing council by the need to secure their political futures. There is also a risk of officers disengaging as they look to their own future careers and a collective tendency to prioritise the announcement of the new over the careful management of the old. A competitive or contested re-organisation process can also contribute to governance failures as it militates against transparency and collaborative thinking. The 2009 split-county cases, Bedfordshire and Cheshire, illustrate how contested endings, compounded by judicial reviews and adversarial positioning, leave a legacy of bitterness and no space or energy for the reflective governance that transition demands.

Q: How can reflection be built into a process dominated by statutory deadlines?

Central government has an entrenched set of attitudes to local government, often transactional, negative and punitive, which shapes its expectations of LGR. Central government's tendency to underestimate both the costs and the complexity of reorganisation exacerbates the problems caused by a flawed relationship which has not historically been based on mutual respect and realistic shared expectations. I would argue that government itself bears responsibility here, for setting unrealistic timescales that leave no room for proper knowledge transfer, democratic reflection or meaningful community engagement. My practical prescription would be to build governance reviews, engagement and structured handover processes into the statutory framework itself, not treat them as optional extras.

Key Example

Northamptonshire County Council (2018–2021): After years of financial mismanagement resulting in debts of around £1 billion, the council was twice forced to issue a Section 114 notice. A 2018 Best Value inspection found it lacked the governance and processes to manage its finances effectively. The council was then expected to manage its own orderly dissolution which was an almost impossible governance task given its condition. The lesson: a council that has already lost governance credibility cannot suddenly recover it for the purposes of transition.

Episode 1 - Summary Point

Governance doesn't end. It transforms. Dissolution is not the absence of governance but one of its most demanding expressions. The quality of governance in the final months of a council's life has a greater impact than almost any individual decision it makes, because it shapes everything the successor body inherits.