Local Government Reorganisation Gamble

Below is the brief presentation I gave at Local Government Reorganisation: St Albans at a Crossroads, hosted by Radio Mix 92.6 at St Albans Cathedral on 28th April, 2025

When I hear the word reorganisation, I always think of a quote, often wrongly attributed to the Roman writer Petronius.

"We trained hard . . . but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralisation."

In December last year, the Labour Government published the 'English Devolution White Paper Power and Partnership: Foundations for Growth', and in March this year, the 'Planning and Infrastructure Bill'.

It reminds me of 1974, when the Heath government’s local government reorganisation created metropolitan counties. By 1986, Thatcher abolished them. This pendulum swing between centralisation and devolution reveals a fundamental tension in British governance – one that, I have to say, today’s reforms risk repeating.

So what are the Government’s motives for reorganisation (and I am not going to be cynically political here, though others have been)? As the title of the December White Paper indicates, the policies for local government are linked to the Government’s agenda of growth, for example, the building 1.5 million homes in their term of office.

Key elements of the reorganisation are:  firstly, ‘big is beautiful', as it is claimed that going bigger will eliminate duplication and create efficiency gains; so the counties where there are two tiers of local government, like Hertfordshire, will move to Unitary Authorities by 2028. It is claimed this will create financial savings of £2.1–3.4 bn over 10 years. This is based on a 6% annual efficiency gain. This claim has been criticised as over-optimistic modelling. The National Audit Office (NAO) has found that past reforms averaged only 2–3%, if any, efficiency gains and the Institute for Government’s data shows transition costs wipe out any saving in the first 3–5 years. Attempts at such efficiency gains bring other consequences, for example: Herts County Council's own projections show that £15m savings would require 250+ job losses, 20% service cuts.

Under the banner of 'devolution', a whole range of strategic powers will be delegated to Elected Mayors in strategic authorities. Strategic Planning will supersede local plans with county-wide frameworks (Spatial Development Strategies) plus a reform of Compulsory Purchase Orders. 

These measures can be perceived as contradictory as they could result in a 'democratic deficit': the loss of local decision making by moving away from district/ town/parish councils, with possibly just one councillor per 10,000 people and three times less scrutiny.

Local Planning will be "streamlined" by halving local planning committees and government ministers overriding local objections on housing. This is likely to have an impact on Green Belt protections and Conservation area safeguards.

One critic has argued the whole reorganisation “ isn't evidence-based policy - it's policy-based evidence."

What about the process of dismantling district councils? This is Hertfordshire Countdown

In March this year, Herts County Council, after consultation with the 10 district councils, submitted initial unitary council plans, with an option of dividing the county into one, or two or three or four unitary authorities.

By 28 November this year, a final decision has to be proposed. It has to be remembered that if the Government doesn’t like the final submission, under the Levelling Up Act of 2023, ministers will be able to impose mergers. In May 2027, 'shadow elections' will be held, and in April 2028, the new system should be operational.

I think the question then isn’t if change comes, but rather what form it will take and how much will be democratic change or dictated change.

Courtesy of St Albans Times

What does this mean for St Albans? It is the end of the City & District Council, and could it mean the possible loss of assets to a unitary authority, for example, Verulamium Park. There will be more central control, and this could mean the loss of a local voice and local knowledge: for example, Planning committees will be halved from 12 to 6 members.  The number of local councillors reduced from 56 to perhaps 12 in a new unitary authority.

There are some worrying precedents: for example, Buckinghamshire became a unitary authority in 2020, and Wycombe's assets were stripped to balance county debts. In 2023, North Yorkshire became a unitary authority and rural services were cut to meet "efficiency targets". It was called 'streamlining' – but it could be seen as institutionalised asset-stripping.

Finally, there is the danger of 'identity erasure': Unitary risks making St Albans just another postcode. When future archaeologists study Verulamium's ruins, will they find the plaque marking the day when we lost years of local governance to a Unitary Authority's spreadsheet?