Local Government Reorganisation: Challenges, Opportunities, and Lessons from Experience

Local government reorganisation (LGR) is a process that is fraught with challenges. My experience supporting a response to the UK Government’s invitation for local government reorganisation proposals highlighted just how complex it can be. Achieving agreement among councils with different political persuasions, cultural identities, and varying strengths and weaknesses requires impartiality, sensitivity, and careful negotiation.

The Early Debate: Should We or Shouldn’t We?

Understandably, many areas begin the process questioning whether local government reorganisation is desirable at all, and how proactively they should contribute to shaping an LGR proposal for their area. However, with government signalling that LGR may be imposed where satisfactory proposals are not forthcoming, local leaders cannot afford to dwell on indecision for too long. While it is important that elected members and senior officers voice their concerns, moving quickly from “should we/shouldn’t we” towards practical planning is critical.

In business case terms, this stage resembles “optioneering” and defining “critical success factors.” Every strongly held view is part of the evaluation process, contributing to how new unitary boundaries could be drawn.

The Complexity of Local Government Reorganisation

The process is highly complex and demands a multi-disciplinary approach. Key starting points are the parameters set out by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (formerly MHCLG), including minimum population thresholds (typically 500,000 residents), alignment with Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) boundaries, and respecting combined authority and mayoral authority arrangements.

The Population Size Challenge

As an economist, I found the population size hurdle particularly significant. In my case, working with an area of just over 1.5 million people left limited permutations that met the 500,000 minimum requirement. While the mathematics is straightforward, cultural identity, local perceptions, and community fit often clash with pure geography and numbers.

Wider Economic and Social Considerations

Beyond population thresholds, there are wider considerations that must be backed by robust data and evidence. These include:

• Economic and social equity – avoiding the creation of a “problem child” unitary with concentrated deprivation.
• Productivity and labour markets – travel-to-work patterns, skills levels, workforce participation, and local industry mix.
• Transport and accessibility – ensuring sustainable connections across new unitary boundaries.
• Health and wellbeing – demographic challenges, health outcomes, and social care needs.
• Public sector assets and services – alignment of police forces, NHS boundaries, and sub-ICB footprints.
• Financial sustainability – workforce capacity, liabilities, balance sheet positions, and long-term resilience.

The Role of Evidence and Neutral Mediation

Navigating these questions requires detailed data analysis and cross-sector expertise. Equally important is depoliticising the debate. External support can provide neutrality, mediation, and an evidence-based approach that helps local leaders keep residents at the heart of decision-making. Acting as a “critical friend” allows sensitive conversations to stay constructive and focused on the shared goal: building sustainable, effective, and inclusive local government structures

< Back to News, Views & Insights