Secretary of State announces next raft of local government reorganisation decisions

In a written ministerial statement to Parliament on Thursday (16 July), Local Government Secretary Steve Reed described the programme as a "once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that councils genuinely represent the communities they serve today and stand the test of time".

He also said it would create the strong local foundations needed to ensure effective devolution and enable effective place-based public services.

The following unitary councils will be created, subject to Parliamentary approval:

• Derbyshire and Derby: Two unitary option submitted by Chesterfield Borough Council, Derby City Council, Erewash Borough Council and High Peak Borough Council. In implementing this option, Reed said he will exercise the power to modify the proposal submitted by South Derbyshire District Council to achieve the boundary change councils requested.
• Devon, Plymouth and Torbay: Four unitary proposal submitted by Exeter City Council and Plymouth City Council. Reed said he will exercise the power to modify the proposal to achieve the boundary change Exeter City Council and Plymouth City Council requested alongside the proposal.
• East Sussex and Brighton and Hove: Two unitary proposal submitted by East Sussex County Council, Eastbourne Borough Council, Hastings Borough Council, Lewes District Council and Rother District Council. Reed said he will exercise the power to modify the proposal to achieve the boundary change requested by Brighton and Hove City Council, with the exception of Falmer Parish.
• Gloucestershire: One unitary proposal submitted by Cotswold District Council, Gloucestershire County Council, Stroud District Council, and Tewkesbury Borough Council.
• Hertfordshire: Four unitary proposal submitted by Broxbourne Borough Council, Dacorum Borough Council, Hertsmere Borough Council, North Hertfordshire District Council, Stevenage Borough Council and Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council. Reed said he will exercise the power to modify the proposal to achieve the boundary change requested by the proposing councils, with the exception of Arbury Ward.
• Kent and Medway: Four unitary proposal submitted by Dover District Council, Swale Borough Council and Thanet District Council.
• Lancashire, Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen: Four unitary proposal submitted by Chorley Borough Council, Lancaster City Council, Preston City Council, Ribble Valley Borough Council, South Ribble Borough Council and West Lancashire Borough Council.
• Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland: Two unitary proposal submitted by Leicester City Council. Reed said he will exercise the power to modify the proposal to achieve the boundary change Leicester City Council requested alongside the proposal with the exception of the part parishes.
• Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and Northeast Lincolnshire: Four unitary proposal submitted by the City of Lincoln Council. Reed said he will exercise the power to modify the proposal to achieve the boundary change requested by the City of Lincoln Council.
• Nottinghamshire and Nottingham: Two unitary option requested by Nottingham City Council. Reed said he will exercise the power to modify the two unitary proposal submitted by Nottinghamshire County Council and Rushcliffe Borough Council to achieve the boundary changes requested by Nottingham City Council.
• Oxfordshire: Three unitary proposal submitted by Oxford City Council, including the adjoining area of West Berkshire Council. Reed said he will exercise the power to modify the proposal to achieve the boundary change Oxford City Council requested alongside the proposal.
• Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent: Two unitary proposal submitted by East Staffordshire Borough Council, Stafford Borough Council and Cannock Chase District Council, and also by Stoke-on-Trent City Council.
• Warwickshire: Two unitary proposal submitted by North Warwickshire Borough Council, Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council, Stratford-on-Avon District Council and Warwick District Council.
• Worcestershire: Two unitary proposal submitted by Bromsgrove District Council, Malvern Hills District Council, Redditch Borough Council, Worcester City Council and Wychavon District Council.

LGR decisions for both Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West Sussex have meanwhile been delayed for further consideration.

Reed told Parliament that he remained committed to meeting the existing deadlines, which will see elections to new unitaries take place in 2027, with new councils going live in 2028.

Commenting on his decision-making approach, he said the department considered each proposal carefully against the criteria set out in the Government's invitation letter, alongside consultation responses, all representations and all other relevant information to assess the proposals.

"Each decision was made on a case-by-case basis, based on the merits of each proposal, respecting local circumstances and taking into account the views of local people," he added.

He also said that he had provided further detail on the decisions in letters to the individual councils affected.

The Secretary of State meanwhile announced an extra £150,000 for each new unitary for Leadership Capacity and Continuity in Children’s Services, Adult Social Care and Public Health.

This is on top of planned £900,000 in transition support funding for each new unitary and  £63m in already-announced capacity funding.

An additional pot of up to £1m will be available to support the small number of areas with complex fire and rescue authority transitions.

“Taken together, this means that areas undergoing local government reorganisation will receive more than £1m per new unitary created,” Reed said.

Elsewhere, Reed said: "Reorganisation provides us with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that councils genuinely represent the communities they serve today and stand the test of time. We know that people care about their own villages, home towns, high streets and communities. But in many parts of the country, existing boundaries do not match local economies, public services, or local identities.

"But we won’t achieve effective devolution or enable effective place-based public services with outdated and misaligned structures that slow down delivery, fragmenting public services, hampering housebuilding and slowing down important decision making. We need to make sure that new councils are grounded in place and are genuinely connected to their communities."

The announcement follows earlier LGR decisions for Surrey, Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.

Adam Carey