Reform criticises latest local government reorganisation decisions as Leicestershire threatens legal challenge

Local Government Secretary Steve Reed confirmed a new raft of LGR decisions for 14 areas on Thursday (16 July), describing the programme as a "once-in-a-generation opportunity" to create councils that "genuinely represent the communities they serve today and stand the test of time".

His announcement included plans to replace Leicestershire’s 10 councils with two unitary authorities.

Responding to the decision, Leicestershire County Council’s Reform UK leader, Dan Harrison, said he was “furious, shocked and bitterly disappointed”.

He said: “This is a disastrous day for democracy. No one wanted this.​ 

“No professional oversight has been given to the effect on Leicestershire residents of the city’s land grab and our residents haven’t been listened to.” 

Cllr Harrison later added: “We’ll be taking legal advice on launching a challenge to government to make sure residents are at the heart of the decision. ​

“Our professional officers will get on with the job. But this is reckless and we’ll continue to fight for those residents who’ve been let down by the government today.” 

The decision in Staffordshire also drew criticism from Reform UK, with the leader of Newcastle Under-Lyme Borough Council, Jonathan Gullis, describing the move as a “shameful betrayal”.

Cllr Gullis vowed to “fight Newcastle-under-Lyme’s corner throughout every stage of the transition”.

He said: “We will fight to protect the Borough’s assets, its civic traditions, its historic identity and the strong connection between local people and those who represent them.

“The Government may abolish Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, but it will not abolish Newcastle-under-Lyme.

“Our towns, villages and communities will not lose their identity. We will not allow Newcastle-under-Lyme to become an afterthought or a forgotten suburb of Stoke-on-Trent.”

Reform UK's head of local government delivery, Ben Bradley, also criticised the announcements, adding: “We heard rumours after the initial fast track area announcements recently that Ministers had ignored the advice of civil servants. It seems like no volume of complaints or judicial reviews is going to make them see sense on this. Political convenience apparently trumps good public services.”

His comments come as two Reform-run councils – Suffolk County Council and Essex County Council - launched judicial review challenges over LGR decisions in their areas, claiming the Secretary of State ignored civil servant advice.

The County Councils’ Network meanwhile claimed the decisions represented a significant shift from the objectives ministers had originally set out.

CCN chair-elect Cllr Sean Matthews – who is also a Reform member – said the Government had initially suggested reorganisation should create councils with populations of 500,000 or more to improve services, achieve savings, withstand financial pressures and avoid unnecessary fragmentation of care services.

He said: "Today's decisions show how far ministers have departed from the statutory criteria and the programme's original aims."

Matthews claimed that while some larger unitary councils would be created, "most will see city and urban areas carved out and the creation of multiple smaller authorities".

He warned the approach would "inevitably end up costing local taxpayers more while causing greater fragmentation and upheaval to services for the most vulnerable", adding that new rural councils could face significant additional costs and service risks.

Matthews said: “Some may wish to proceed to implementation. But in other areas they will question the motivations that lay behind the decisions and will pursue answers to whether proposals have been robustly tested against the statutory criteria and if proper consideration has been given to the long-term resilience of the new councils being created.”

He also urged the Government to listen to councils' concerns, review whether the programme remained deliverable within existing timescales and take account of ongoing judicial review proceedings.

Adam Carey