The Government’s decision to pause and review the local government reorganisation programme represents a significant change of direction for councils across England.
The decisions taken in March for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk have been withdrawn following updated legal advice, while the 14 decisions announced in July are now under review. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West Sussex, where decisions had not yet been taken, are also within the review. Surrey is expressly excluded because the new East and West Surrey councils are already established in law.
The immediate challenge for local authorities is uncertainty. Significant resources have already been committed to developing proposals, planning transitions and preparing organisations for fundamentally different structures. The temptation will be either to carry on regardless (potentially rushing through transactions) or to stop everything. Neither is necessarily the right response.
The letter from Minister, Jim McMahon to council leaders and chief executive on 7 September provides the clearest indication that the Government wants to take into account the Cabinet Statement on the wider "rewiring the State" as part of its deliberations.
The legal advice is clearly important but the Government has moved beyond a narrow legal review. The Secretary of State has withdrawn four earlier decisions and has been explicit that she wants to satisfy herself that the process is robust and compliant with the law. The review is clearly broader than simply repairing individual decision-making. McMahon says Government has heard representations concerning both specific decisions and the “scale and pace of the programme more broadly”. He confirms that his review will examine the programme as a whole and that the forthcoming Devolution White Paper will consider the role of local government within a devolved state.
That creates two distinct questions.
First, was the process by which decisions were reached sufficiently robust as a matter of public law (which for the writers of this article was of clear interest))? Secondly, are the structures previously selected still consistent with the new Government’s wider approach to devolution?
The second question potentially has much greater long-term significance. If Government is reconsidering the relationship between local authorities, unitary councils and strategic or mayoral authorities, the eventual outcome may involve more than choosing between the existing LGR proposals.
What should affected councils do now?
For authorities covered by the July decisions, there is now an express ministerial instruction to “cease work on implementing the decisions” until the review concludes.
That should be taken seriously. But it should not necessarily be interpreted as meaning that every piece of work connected with LGR must stop.
We consider that councils should now undertake a structured review of their programmes where there is political will to do so.
1. Identify and stop implementation activity
Programme boards should now undertake a rapid assessment of committed and anticipated expenditure.
Particular attention should be given to consultancy appointments, technology contracts, leases, programme personnel and procurements where costs may continue during the pause.
Authorities should consider termination rights, break provisions, variation mechanisms and whether expenditure continues to satisfy ordinary public-law, fiduciary and best-value requirements given the changed circumstances.
2. Continue sensible non-binding activity
Not everything undertaken as part of LGR loses its value.
Work to understand assets, liabilities, contracts, workforce arrangements, service performance, ICT estates and organisational dependencies may remain highly valuable regardless of the eventual configuration.
Councils should therefore distinguish between implementation of a particular Government decision and preparatory work which strengthens organisational understanding and resilience. Transactions being pushed through "at pace" to try and reach conclusions ahead of reorganisation should have their level of political urgency reviewed.
3. Review expenditure and contractual commitments
Programme boards should now undertake a rapid assessment of committed and anticipated expenditure.
Particular attention should be given to consultancy appointments, technology contracts, leases, programme personnel and procurements where costs may continue during the pause.
Authorities should consider termination rights, break provisions, variation mechanisms and whether expenditure continues to satisfy ordinary public-law, fiduciary and best-value requirements given the changed circumstances.
4. Preserve the evidence trail
For authorities involved in contested proposals or potential litigation, document preservation will be important.
Consultation responses, competing business cases, financial modelling, officer advice and correspondence with Government may all become relevant if decisions are reconsidered or challenged.
Councils contemplating judicial review will also need to reassess strategy now that some decisions have been withdrawn and others placed under review.
5. Do not assume the original map will return
Perhaps the most important strategic point is that councils should not treat the review as a short pause before implementation resumes unchanged.
There is presently no published timetable for completing the review, and May 2027 elections are now expected to proceed on existing boundaries.
Authorities should scenario-plan accordingly, including the possibility of altered boundaries, different combinations of authorities, further consultation or a revised national policy framework.
An opportunity as well as a problem
The uncertainty is plainly unwelcome. Councils have invested substantial time, resources and political capital in the process.
But Government now has an opportunity to resolve a more fundamental question: what is local government reorganisation actually intended to achieve?
Form should follow function. The appropriate geography of local government should ultimately reflect which services benefit from scale, which decisions require genuine local democratic proximity and how local councils should relate to increasingly powerful strategic authorities.
For local authorities, the sensible approach in the meantime is therefore neither business as usual nor complete paralysis. It is to pause implementation, protect the value of work already undertaken, preserve flexibility and prepare actively for what may now be a materially different phase of local government reform.
