Reform UK’s recent letter to the Prime Minister, signed by 24 council leaders, argues that local authorities should be given the power to prevent the Home Office from accommodating asylum seekers in their communities. It presents the issue as one of restoring democratic accountability, arguing that decisions have become increasingly centralised in Whitehall and outsourced to private contractors, while local communities are expected to manage the consequences.

The concerns underpinning the letter are not new. Many councils have argued that they are consulted too late, have little influence over accommodation decisions and receive insufficient support when significant numbers of asylum seekers are placed within their boundaries. Those concerns are legitimate and deserve serious consideration. Whether granting councils the power to refuse accommodation is the most effective response is a separate question.

An alternative interpretation is that the policy failure occurs much earlier in the process. The UK operates a number of safe and legal humanitarian routes, including resettlement programmes and family reunion, but there is no general mechanism enabling a person fleeing persecution to apply for asylum overseas and travel legally to the UK if their claim is accepted. For many people, the asylum system can only be accessed after reaching British territory. That does not excuse irregular migration, nor diminish the importance of secure borders, but it does help explain why dangerous journeys continue despite successive attempts to deter them.

If the objective is greater control, there is a strong argument that control should begin before people travel, rather than after they arrive. Expanding controlled humanitarian pathways, strengthening overseas screening and creating predictable routes for those with genuine protection needs would enable the state to determine who travels, under what conditions and following what security checks. Combined with faster decisions, effective border enforcement and the removal of those with no right to remain, such an approach has the potential to reduce reliance on criminal smuggling networks while strengthening confidence in the asylum system.

The debate is often complicated by the tendency to treat asylum and immigration as though they are the same issue. They are not. Asylum exists to provide protection to people fleeing persecution or conflict and is underpinned by international legal obligations. Immigration policy, by contrast, concerns how a country manages population change, economic growth, labour markets and public services. While the two inevitably intersect, they are founded on different principles and should not be judged by identical policy objectives.

Even where asylum is considered alongside wider migration, the argument is more complex than it is often presented. The UK has an ageing population and birth rates remain well below replacement level. Many countries that have historically been major sources of migration are experiencing the same demographic transition. Over time, developed economies are likely to compete more actively for working-age people, blurring the distinction between traditional ‘push’ and ‘pull’ countries. This does not mean asylum should become an instrument of labour market policy, but it does suggest that migration policy requires a longer-term strategic perspective than simply reducing headline numbers.

The challenge for government, therefore, may be less about whether individual councils should be able to refuse asylum accommodation and more about whether the asylum system itself commands public confidence. The route by which people reach the UK has become almost as significant in public debate as the decisions taken once they arrive. A system that provides credible safe and legal pathways for those in genuine need of protection, while maintaining robust border security, swift decisions and effective returns for those with no right to remain, may ultimately offer greater control than devolving powers over accommodation after the fact.

One phrase appears consistently throughout guidance on local government reorganisation (LGR) is “safe and legal.” It has become the accepted shorthand for ensuring that a new authority is capable of operating lawfully from Vesting Day, with governance, finance, ICT, workforce, contracts and statutory functions all in place, and public services continuing without interruption. No reorganisation will be considered successful if residents are unable to access essential services or if the new authority cannot fulfil its legal duties from its first day. Clearly, a safe and legal transition is therefore the essential first objective of any LGR programme.

But what happens once that objective has been achieved?

Looking across previous reorganisations, there is little criticism of the emphasis placed on becoming safe and legal. Most evaluations recognise that it must be the immediate priority. What they also demonstrate, however, is that establishing a new authority and creating a better authority are not the same thing.

Previous reorganisations consistently tell us that Vesting Day marks the beginning of a much longer journey. Integrating organisations, aligning policies, replacing legacy systems, redesigning services and embedding a single organisational identity continue well beyond the formal creation of the new council. In many cases, these activities take several years before the intended benefits of reorganisation are fully realised.

This distinction is reflected in the way reorganisations are delivered. Before Vesting Day, implementation programmes understandably prioritise continuity over transformation. Existing systems are often retained because replacing them would introduce unnecessary risk. Service arrangements are carried forward rather than redesigned immediately. Transitional organisational structures remain in place while longer-term operating models are developed. To an extent, these are sensible decisions because, for Councils, the priority is to protect residents from disruption.

However, they also demonstrate that operational readiness and organisational transformation are two different objectives. There is a risk is that being “safe and legal” becomes the principal measure of success.

Most implementation programmes contain detailed workstreams covering governance, finance, ICT, legal services, HR, property, contracts and programme management. These are essential components of any successful transition. Comparatively less attention is often given questions like:

• What will residents actually experience differently?
• How will services become easier to access, more responsive or better joined up?
• How will local identity be maintained within larger unitary authorities?
• How will communities influence decisions once district councils no longer exist?
• How will success be measured beyond simply reaching Vesting Day?

These questions are more difficult to answer, but they are arguably the questions that determine whether reorganisation has achieved its purpose.

This is particularly important when considering the role of town and parish councils. As principal authorities become geographically larger, the importance of the most local tier inevitably increases. Town and parish councils provide local knowledge, democratic visibility and an understanding of place that larger organisations cannot easily replicate. Recent sector guidance increasingly recognises that relationships with town and parish councils should be developed as part of the reorganisation itself, rather than being viewed as a post-implementation exercise.

This is not an argument that services should automatically transfer to town and parish councils. Capacity varies significantly between councils and local circumstances differ. It is, however, an argument that locality should be designed into the future authority from the outset. Decisions about community engagement, neighbourhood working and local partnerships shape residents’ experience every bit as much as decisions about governance structures or organisational charts.

Perhaps the most important lesson from previous reorganisations is that “safe and legal” only describes a threshold. It answers the question of whether a new authority can operate, not whether it has become a better council.

LGR is not progressed simply to create a new legal entity, but instead to improve the way local government serves people and places. Previous experience suggests that achieving a "safe and legal" transition is indispensable, but it should be regarded as the foundation upon which the real work begins. The longer-term success of LGR will be judged not by whether the new authority functioned on Day One, but by whether residents experience better services, stronger local relationships and councils that remain genuinely connected to the communities they serve.

After months of competing proposals, consultations and increasingly strained relationships, the Government has now made most of its decisions on local government reorganisation (LGR).

The sector undoubtedly has more certainty than it did a week ago. That should not, however, be mistaken for clarity. In many places, the debate has simply moved on.

So where does that leave local government?

The Knowns

The overall direction is now clear

The Government remains committed to replacing two-tier local government with unitary councils in the areas selected for reorganisation. Ministers continue to present LGR as the foundation for wider devolution, stronger public services and economic growth.

Whether councils agree with that policy or not, there is nothing to suggest the Government intends to change course.

Most of the map has now been settled

Decisions have now been announced for 19 of the 21 areas included in the programme. The latest announcements cover a further 14 areas and create 34 new unitary councils. West Sussex and Cambridgeshire & Peterborough remain outstanding.

The decisions include:

• one county-wide unitary in Gloucestershire;
• two-unitary models across several areas, including Derbyshire, Staffordshire and Nottinghamshire;
• three councils covering Oxfordshire and West Berkshire;
• four-unitary models in Kent, Hertfordshire, Lancashire, Devon and Greater Lincolnshire;
• a number of expanded city boundaries.

There is no single blueprint for LGR. Similar areas have received different outcomes, reflecting the Government’s judgement of individual business cases rather than the application of a uniform model.

Cities have generally strengthened their position

One of the clearest themes is the willingness to expand city boundaries.

Nottingham, Leicester, Exeter, Plymouth, Lincoln and Brighton & Hove are all set to grow under the approved proposals.

That has been welcomed by many city leaders, who argue that council boundaries should better reflect modern communities and travel-to-work patterns.

It has also prompted criticism from counties and districts, many of whom believe greater weight has been given to urban growth than to existing service arrangements, historic boundaries or community identity.

Population guidance has proved just that

Earlier discussions around preferred population sizes led many to expect a relatively consistent approach across England.

The final decisions suggest otherwise.

Gloucestershire will become a single authority serving around 660,000 residents, while other areas will operate with considerably smaller councils. That is broadly consistent with previous court judgments, which have treated population ranges as guidance rather than fixed rules.

For councils considering legal action, this makes it unlikely that arguments based solely on population size will succeed.

Legal challenges are now part of the landscape

Legal proceedings arising from the earlier decisions are already under way, while several councils affected by the latest announcements have confirmed they are considering similar action.

A judicial review is not an opportunity to argue that a different geography would have been preferable. The courts will instead consider whether the Secretary of State reached the decision lawfully and followed a fair process.

Councils have little choice but to prepare

Judicial review does not automatically bring implementation to a halt.

Although courts can intervene in exceptional circumstances, the existence of legal proceedings does not prevent councils from planning for reorganisation.

That leaves many authorities in an uncomfortable position. They may continue to challenge the Government’s decision while simultaneously preparing to implement it.

Several have already adopted exactly that approach, arguing that maintaining influence over transition is preferable to stepping away from the process altogether.

The known unknowns

These are the questions everyone can identify, but which nobody can yet answer with any certainty.

Will any judicial review succeed?

Much will depend on the facts of individual cases.

General arguments about council size, political preference or inconsistent outcomes are unlikely to be enough on their own.

More persuasive arguments are likely to focus on questions such as:

• whether relevant evidence was properly considered;
• whether important financial information was withheld;
• whether consultations were conducted on the same basis as the final decision;
• whether ministers applied their own criteria consistently;
• whether decisions were reached rationally.

Even if a challenge succeeds, it will likely require the Government to reconsider its decision. This does not automatically mean a different outcome.

What will the new councils actually look like?

The broad geography has now been decided.

Many of the practical details have not.

Questions remain around:

• council names;
• civic identity;
• ward boundaries;
• councillor numbers;
• governance arrangements;
• headquarters;
• senior leadership;
• scrutiny arrangements;
• the relationship with town and parish councils.

Those decisions are not secondary, but they will shape how residents experience the new organisations.

How will existing services and responsibilities be divided?

Separating decades of shared services, staff, contracts, assets and statutory responsibilities is quite different to determining the lines on the map.

Authorities will need to determine how responsibilities for areas such as:

• adult social care;
• children’s services;
• SEND;
• highways;
• public health;
• property;
• contracts;
• debt and pensions;
• ICT;
• specialist teams

are allocated between successor councils.

Many of these arrangements will not divide neatly along new boundaries.

Alongside those national challenges sit issues that are unique to individual places.

Kent illustrates the point. The Government has confirmed four new unitary councils, but it has not yet set out how responsibility for the existing cohort of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, the associated funding or the county’s long-standing gateway pressures will be allocated between those new authorities. Similar questions exist elsewhere around shared services, major assets, historic liabilities and long-standing local partnerships.

These are not matters that will only be resolved through a ministerial announcement. They will need to be worked through locally over the coming months and, in many cases, are likely to have a greater impact on residents than the boundaries themselves.

What will it cost?

Councils face expenditure on programme management, legal advice, staffing, ICT, accommodation, elections, branding, contract transfer and service redesign.

Much less certain is:

• how much funding government will provide;
• whether that funding will cover transition costs;
• when efficiencies will begin to emerge;
• whether every new authority will begin life on a financially sustainable footing.

Savings may well materialise over time, but they are unlikely to arrive before the investment needed to establish the new organisations.

How does devolution fit into the picture?

LGR has consistently been presented as the first step towards deeper devolution.

Yet councils still do not know what the future strategic authority geography will look like in several areas.

That leaves authorities in the unusual position of knowing the council they will become without knowing the wider governance arrangements within which they will operate.

For many, that uncertainty is becoming increasingly significant.

Can the timetable still be delivered?

The Government continues to work towards shadow elections in 2027 and vesting for many new authorities in 2028.

Even with full cooperation, that is an ambitious timetable.

It becomes more challenging where:

• legal proceedings remain active;
• decisions have been delayed;
• boundaries require further technical work;
• senior leadership changes;
• councils reduce their involvement in transition planning.

The question is whether LGR can happen safely, while maintaining services and avoiding unnecessary risk.

The unknowns

Some questions simply cannot be answered yet.

Politics may yet change the picture

The latest announcements were among Steve Reed’s final decisions as Communities Secretary.

A successor could maintain the current programme, adjust the timetable or take a different approach to implementation and devolution.

Councils pursuing legal or political challenges will be watching closely.

Relationships will matter

In some areas, councils have managed to maintain constructive relationships despite backing different proposals.

Elsewhere, the process has strained relationships between counties, districts, neighbouring authorities and political leaders.

Those relationships now matter.

They will influence:

• how quickly decisions are made;
• how information is shared;
• how confident staff feel;
• the quality of transition planning;
• ultimately, how effective the new organisations become.

Good relationships will not solve every problem.

Poor ones will almost certainly create new ones.

How will residents judge success?

Residents are unlikely to judge LGR on the basis of governance diagrams or organisational charts.

They will judge it on whether services continue to work, whether decisions remain locally informed and whether the new councils feel connected to the communities they serve.

If residents experience simpler services, clearer accountability and stronger local leadership, the reforms will be judged a success.

If they experience disruption, remoteness or declining service quality, the debate about structures will quickly become secondary.

Where does that leave the sector?

LGR has now moved beyond debate about competing maps.

For most areas, the geography has been decided.

Attention now turns to legal challenge where appropriate, careful implementation and building organisations that are capable of serving their communities from day one.

Councils now face three parallel tasks:

1. pursue legal challenges where there is a credible public law basis for doing so;
2. continue planning to protect services and ensure a safe transition;
3. design new organisations that work for residents rather than simply combining predecessor councils.

The map is (mostly) now settled.

Whether the Government’s ambitions are realised will depend on what happens next...

Roughly 5,000 seats were contested across 136 councils, alongside six directly elected local authority mayoralties. The 2026 cycle was unusually complicated because elections previously delayed amid reorganisation and devolution disputes were restored to the calendar after ministers reversed course in February 2026. Ministers had initially planned widespread postponements in areas undergoing reorganisation before withdrawing the proposal on 16 February “in light of recent legal advice”.

From the results, two broad conclusions appear uncontroversial: Labour recorded its worst local-election performance on record, while Reform achieved the highest projected national vote share at around 27%. Turnout patterns were uneven (which is normal), though the elections took place against a somewhat more energised political backdrop than is typical for local contests.

The Results

These elections have proven that the old two-party political map has not merely frayed; it has started to come apart. Labour suffered the worst English local-election performance in its modern history, losing heavily to Reform UK in former industrial and Red Wall territory, to the Greens in inner London and university-oriented cities, and to independents where highly local grievances boiled over.

The Conservatives also lost badly overall, though unevenly. In parts of the south, they were displaced by the Liberal Democrats; in sections of the east and the Midlands by Reform; while a handful of affluent urban pockets still showed signs of Conservative resilience.

Three distinct electoral stories emerged. In northern and Midlands metropolitan areas, Reform managed to use public dissatisfaction as a catalyst for electoral gain. Barnsley gave the party 42 seats and the council, while Hartlepool saw Reform win all 12 seats contested. But inner London produced a different upheaval, with Hackney electing a Green mayor and Green-led council, with Lambeth and Haringey also shifting away from Labour. In the south and south-west London suburbs, the Liberal Democrats turned anti-Conservative and anti-populist sentiment into highly efficient victories. Richmond went Lib Dem, while Portsmouth gave them control despite Reform topping the city-wide vote share.

The electorate was therefore not moving in one direction. Former Labour industrial voters often moved towards Reform; younger urban progressives and disillusioned Labour-left voters shifted to the Greens; older southern anti-Tories continued to favour the Liberal Democrats; and local independents prospered where council failure or community-specific anger outweighed party loyalties.

These elections (again) demonstrated how England’s local electoral system magnifies concentrated support while punishing diffuse support. First past the post, combined with multi-member wards where electors may cast as many votes as there are vacancies, means relatively modest shifts in ward-level vote distribution can produce dramatic seat swings. Richmond was a good example: the Liberal Democrats won all 54 seats on 51.46% of the vote. Portsmouth illustrated the reverse effect: Reform secured the largest city-wide vote share at 33% but won only five seats, while the Liberal Democrats won eight seats on 30%.

How the parties performed

Labour’s result was not simply poor; it was poor in several incompatible ways simultaneously. The party lost support to Reform on the right, to the Greens on the left, and to independents in places where local frustration triumphed over party loyalty. In Barnsley, Hartlepool and Calderdale, Reform became the principal beneficiary. In Hackney, Lambeth and Haringey, Labour’s losses came from a progressive-green coalition. In Birmingham, Labour was hit simultaneously by Reform, the Greens and independents. Politically, that fragmentation matters because it offers no single route back.

Keir Starmer acknowledged the seriousness of the outcome, describing the results as “very tough” and accepting responsibility. Governing parties often suffer in local elections, but the breadth of Labour’s losses suggested something beyond ordinary mid-term dissatisfaction. Labour lost support among culturally conservative working-class voters, younger metropolitan progressives and highly localised protest electorates at the same time.

The Conservatives also endured a poor election, though in a more complex way than the headline losses suggested. Nationally, they lost councillors and council control, yet retained strength in a number of affluent and higher-turnout areas. Kemi Badenoch’s campaign focused on tax restraint, crime and municipal competence, while attacking Labour over Birmingham’s bin strikes and criticising Reform over council-tax rises in areas it already controlled. That message failed across much of England but continued to resonate in parts of southern England and wealthier London districts.

Reform was plainly the largest winner in terms of seats, describing the outcome as a “historic breakthrough” after taking control of 14 councils. In parts of England, it is now either an administration-in-waiting or already the governing party. The political question has shifted from whether Reform can win to what kind of governing record it will establish locally.

The Liberal Democrats’ performance received less national attention but was stronger than the headlines suggested. They swept Richmond and took Portsmouth, while pre-election polling had indicated they would retain much of their southern and suburban base rather than being squeezed by Reform or the Greens. Ed Davey framed the party as a defence against Reform’s “Trump-style politics”, and the geography of the results suggested that message resonated. Across much of southern England, the Liberal Democrats remained the preferred anti-Conservative vehicle for voters unwilling to support either Reform or the Greens.

The Greens had perhaps the most interesting election because their advances were both substantial and selective. Nationally, they gained 331 councillors and four councils, while also securing their first directly elected mayor. Yet their growth remained uneven. In some places they converted concentrated support efficiently into seats, while elsewhere they continued to poll strongly without equivalent representation because they finished second or third too frequently.

Independents and local groups were not the dominant national story, but they mattered in specific localities. Birmingham was the clearest example, where independents gained 10 seats alongside Green and Reform advances in a political environment shaped by bankruptcy, service cuts and geo-political campaigning. Redbridge returned nine independents, while Havering ended with no party in overall control. Rather than representing a coherent national movement, these gains reflected concentrated local eruptions where party reputations had collapsed, and community-level campaigns could offer tangible alternatives.

All in, the 2026 English local elections did not produce a single national realignment so much as expose the fragmentation of the political landscape. Labour’s coalition fractured in multiple directions at once; the Conservatives remained weakened but not extinguished; Reform established itself as a serious force of local government in parts of England; the Liberal Democrats consolidated their southern suburban base; and the Greens demonstrated that concentrated urban support can now translate into meaningful institutional power.

What emerged was a far more geographically differentiated electorate than the traditional two-party model assumes. Political competition increasingly varies by region, age, class, housing patterns and local political culture rather than following a single national swing. These elections therefore mattered not only because of who won councils, but because they suggested that England’s local politics is becoming structurally more plural, more volatile and more territorially fragmented.

The first county councils have confirmed they will ask government to delay local elections scheduled for next May, citing the pressure of devolution and local government reorganisation. East Sussex and West Sussex have both said they intend to request postponement, while other counties are split, with some ruling it out and others still weighing their options. 

Ministers have confirmed that 63 councils involved in reorganisation will be able to request a delay, with a deadline of 15 January to do so. The stated rationale is capacity: councils argue that running elections alongside structural reform risks pulling focus away from delivery. 

Why councils are asking for delays

The arguments being made are practical rather than political. Some councils point to the cost of running elections for councillors who may serve only a year before further elections linked to new unitary structures. Others argue it is unreasonable to expect newly elected members to operate in a council that is already in the process of being wound down. 

In Sussex, leaders have linked the request directly to the scale of change underway, arguing that concentrating elections into a single point later in the transition would be more coherent and better value for taxpayers. 

Why some councils are resisting

Not all counties are convinced. Leaders in Essex and Hampshire have said elections should go ahead as planned, with the view that if government has set the timetable for reorganisation, it should take responsibility for whether it can be delivered alongside normal democratic cycles. 

Others, including Norfolk and Thurrock, have criticised both the timing and volume of recent announcements from government, pointing to the cumulative impact of devolution changes, finance settlements and now election decisions landing in quick succession. 

Why this matters

Election delays go to the heart of local democratic legitimacy. While postponement may make operational sense during reorganisation, it also risks reinforcing the perception that structural reform is something done to communities rather than with them. The fact that councils have been invited to request delays, rather than government taking a single national position, adds to the sense of an uneven and pressured process. 

There is also a practical knock-on. Delayed elections affect political balance, member mandates and local accountability at a time where councils are making long-term decisions about structures, assets and services.

What councils should be thinking about

• Be clear about the reasons for any request and communicate them plainly to residents.
• Consider how democratic accountability will be maintained if terms are extended.
• Plan for political stability during the transition, regardless of the election decision.

Election delays may ease short-term pressure, but they come with longer-term consequences that need to be handled carefully.

English local government reorganisation is moving at pace, but not with much simplicity. Across many areas, councils developed proposals in parallel, often competing with neighbouring authorities covering the same geography. This has driven a surge in modelling, consultation, and advisory spend, alongside a heavy draw on senior officer and member time. 

Although the process is framed as locally led, the reality is that final decisions rest with central government. Councils can propose, negotiate and lobby, but Ministers decide the shape, timing and outcome of reform. 

How England got here

England has favoured an incremental approach to reorganisation since the 1990s. Different governments have invited proposals, considered them selectively, and implemented change in waves rather than through a single national settlement. The result has been a patchwork of structures, with some areas fully unitary, others unchanged, and some shaped by historic compromise rather than design. 

That model places much of the burden on councils themselves. They are expected to make the case for change, estimate costs and savings, and manage local politics, even though they do not control the final decision.

What Wales and Scotland show

In Wales and Scotland, reorganisation was delivered through Acts of Parliament. That approach enabled proper parliamentary debate on the number and boundaries of unitary councils, with scope for both Houses to table and debate amendments.

In England, by contrast, structural change orders are generally put to Parliament on a straight yes or no basis, with no ability to amend the detail.  

Why this matters

Reorganisation is not happening in isolation. It is running alongside devolution deals, mayoral governance, and wider changes to public service boundaries, including policing, fire and health. When these strands are not aligned, councils face overlapping transitions that are difficult to manage and harder to explain to residents. 

Time spent refining structural arguments is time not spent preparing for implementation. The test for reorganisation will be whether services continue to function, staff stay engaged, and new authorities can operate effectively from day one.

What councils should focus on

• Delivery: strong proposals matter, but credible implementation plans matter more. Assumptions need to be realistic and transparent.
• Transition: governance, workforce, finance and partner arrangements should be treated as core workstreams, not afterthoughts.
• Communication: councils should be clear with members, staff and residents about where influence genuinely sits and what is still undecided.

The wider lesson

England is now committed to this route for the current round of reform. But structural change at scale works best when government sets out the options clearly, accepts responsibility for the framework, and allows proper scrutiny of the detail before councils invest months of effort in competing scenarios.

For an insightful view on what England could learn from the Welsh and Scottish experience of reorganisation, read Celtic lessons on LGR in the Local Government Chronicle. 

New unitaries will be asked to move fast, take on complex services, stabilise finances, and prove they can be close to the communities they serve. Larger councils can mean greater distance, unless there is a deliberate plan for neighbourhood-level leadership and accountability.

That is (or should be) where town and parish councils step in.

What is changing

Reorganisation changes how decisions are made, who residents can reach, and what happens to the smaller, everyday services people notice most. When districts disappear, so does a local layer of governance. Unless something fills that gap, you end up with one of two outcomes:

• A highly centralised unitary that struggles to stay connected to place.
• A patchwork of informal arrangements that lack democratic legitimacy, consistency, and staying power.

In practice, neither is a great offer to residents.

Why town and parish councils matter

Town and parish councils are not a silver bullet, but they are a democratic layer that already exists, is understood locally, and can be scaled in a way that neighbourhood committees cannot. They can also be a practical partner for a unitary that needs visible place leadership without creating a whole new tier of bureaucracy.

For reorganisation areas, the strategic question is about how you keep decision-making and accountability rooted in place while simplifying the top tier.

Parishing and strengthening existing parishes are among the few options that have democratic legitimacy, continuity, and local identity in one package.

The asset and services issue will not go away

Even if the politics of reorganisation takes centre stage, the operational reality will remain. Many valued community assets are expensive to maintain, and principal councils are under long-term financial pressure. That makes community asset transfer, service delegation, and local stewardship more likely, not less.

The risk here is creating expectations without capacity. Transferring a park or a community building without a long-term financial plan, governance support, and realistic service standards is a recipe for reputation harm and local conflict. Done well, though, it can protect assets, keep them open, and anchor local pride.

What councils should be doing now

• Districts and counties heading into transition should treat community governance as a core workstream, not a side project. If local arrangements are going to change, they need to be designed early, with proper consultation and clarity.
• New unitaries in shadow form should be clear what “local” means on day one. If it is left vague, the vacuum will be filled by frustration.
• Existing town and parish councils should take stock. What could you take on, what would you refuse, and what support would you need to do it well? Capacity, staff support, and governance discipline will matter more than ambition.

The bottom line

Reorganisation will succeed or fail based on the residents' experience during the first year or two. If local democracy and local delivery feel weaker after the change, the reform will be judged a failure.

For two good reads that explore these issues from different angles, see Mark Smith in the Municipal Journal (Sept 2025) and the Ian Miller Municipal Journal piece from 4 December 2025. 

The Government has introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, a major reform package aimed at strengthening transparency, ethical conduct and accountability across the public sector. It creates a new statutory duty of candour, introduces criminal offences for misleading the public, and replaces the old common law offence of misconduct in public office. It also expands rights for families participating in inquiries and inquests.

This is a significant shift, and councils of all tiers need to understand what’s coming.

Does it apply to local government? Yes. Does it apply to parish and town councils? Also yes.

The Bill explicitly defines “local authority” to include parish councils in England and community councils in Wales. (Schedule 2, Part 2, para. 2(1)(h); and “local authority” definition at Part 5, Section 23(1)) 

It also defines public officials to include individuals who work for a public authority, and holds elected members of local authorities within scope in certain contexts (Schedule 4). 

In short: town and parish councils fall fully within scope wherever the Bill applies to “local authorities”.

Key Provisions for Councils

1. Statutory Duty of Candour – applying to inquiries and investigations

Public authorities and public officials must act with candour, transparency and frankness in all dealings with statutory and non-statutory inquiries, and coronial investigations. (Part 2, Chapter 1) 

This includes duties to:

• proactively identify relevant information

• provide assistance and position statements

• correct errors

• act expeditiously and without self-protection

Failure to comply, if intentional or reckless, becomes a criminal offence, carrying up to two years’ imprisonment (Section 5). 

Local angle:

This duty would bite if your council (including a parish or town council) were involved in any inquiry, major incident review, or coronial investigation where council actions or information were relevant. Clerks and senior officers become responsible for ensuring compliance.

2. Ethical Standards Duty

Public authorities must adopt and maintain a Code of Ethical Conduct built around the Seven Principles of Public Life (selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership). (Section 9) 

The Code must:

• embed the duty of candour

• explain standards in practical terms

• set out disciplinary consequences

• include whistleblowing arrangements

• explain how the public can complain

Local angle:

Town and parish councils will need a compliant code. Many councils already adopt the NALC model code; this Bill would require strengthening that with explicit candour duties and clearer internal processes.

3. Offence of Misleading the Public

A public authority or public official commits an offence if they intentionally or recklessly mislead the public in a seriously improper way. (Section 11) 

This captures significant or repeated dishonesty on matters of public concern.

Local angle:

This raises the stakes for public statements by councillors, clerks and senior officers. Misleading reassurance after a service failure, or withholding material facts in a public notice, could be caught if “seriously improper”.

4. Replacement of Misconduct in Public Office

The Bill abolishes the old common law offence and creates two statutory ones:

• Seriously improper acts (Section 12)

• Breach of a duty to prevent death or serious injury (Section 13)

These carry penalties of up to ten and fourteen years in prison respectively.

Local angle:

This matters most for principal authorities, but could still apply to parish and town councils in areas where they hold statutory responsibilities (e.g. managing assets, open spaces, cemeteries, or running services with safety implications).

5. Participation in Inquiries and Inquests

The Bill strengthens the role of bereaved families in inquiries and inquests and places expectations on public bodies to support fair participation. (Part 4) 

Local angle:

If a parish or town council is an interested party in an inquest (e.g. incidents on council-owned land), it will fall under these participation duties.

What Councils Should Do Now

For principal councils

• Begin reviewing ethical governance frameworks.

• Map responsibilities that could create exposure under the duty of candour.

• Train senior officers and members on the new offences.

For town and parish councils

• Prepare to update the Code of Conduct to incorporate candour, transparency and whistleblowing duties.

• Ensure clerks understand the new statutory obligations (as they are the “individual in charge” for these purposes if no CEO exists).

• Review how information is recorded, stored and disclosed, particularly where the council might become party to an investigation or inquest.

Given the Bill’s scope and the introduction of criminal sanctions, smaller councils should not assume they sit outside this framework. They don’t.

Background

The government has set out its three-year finance policy for local government from 2026 to 2029. Most of the detail applies to upper-tier and unitary councils, but there are clear implications for Town and Parish Councils and the environment in which they will be operating.

Here's your Rundown of what matters most.

No referendum principles for Town and Parish Councils
Town and Parish Councils remain outside council tax referendum rules, and the policy gives no indication that referendum thresholds will be applied to parishes. **A sigh of relief**, the government clearly recognises the need for flexibility, and that a percentage rise on a very small base only ever delivers a modest sum in practice.
So, while principal authorities will face limits on tax increases, parishes retain the freedom to set the precept required to fund local priorities.

Pressure on principal councils could increase the likelihood of assets and services being pushed downwards
The Fair Funding Review 2.0 will redistribute resources towards areas of higher deprivation. That means some District and Unitary Councils will lose funding or face flat cash positions once transitional protections fall away.
As principal councils adjust to the new system, expectations on parish involvement may rise, whether through asset transfers, shared arrangements, or support for community-level services.
Parishes may find that their ability to act quickly and fund small but visible services becomes more important in supporting communities where principal authorities are under pressure.

The principal authority landscape will not stay still
The government has confirmed its intention to move to a single-tier of local government in more areas and to bring an end to two-tier structures.
For Town and Parish Councils, this means:
• new relationships with successor unitary authorities
• new models of engagement on neighbourhood services
• possible changes to local boundaries or community governance in some areas
Even where reorganisation is not immediately planned, the shift towards larger local authorities continues to shape expectations of parish involvement in local service delivery.

The new Outcomes Framework will shape how principal councils work with parishes
Government will publish an Outcomes Framework for Local Government to guide how public money is used. It will become operational in spring 2026.
This will influence:
• how principal councils decide which local projects to support
• the expectations placed on parish-led schemes
• the level of reporting or evidence required when parishes receive funding or partner on services
While parishes are not directly bound by the framework, they will need to align with it when seeking support or joint working arrangements.

A review of fees and charges could affect local partnership working
Government will review sales, fees and charges across local government.
Parishes could be indirectly affected where changes are made to:
• planning related fees
• licensing charges
• environmental and facilities fees linked to devolved assets
Any adjustments to cost recovery at the principal council level may change the financial assumptions behind devolved or jointly delivered services. 

In Sum
The policy statement leaves parish powers untouched but changes the landscape around them. Parishes keep their precepting freedom and face no new restrictions. Meanwhile, principal councils will see significant reform, more complex funding transitions and, in some cases, reduced resources.
This combination means:
• more pressure on parishes to take on assets and neighbourhood services
• increased focus on evidence of outcomes when bidding for support
• greater reliance on parish capacity as principal councils manage change
• a continuing shift of activity to the grassroots, building on patterns already seen through local government reorganisation

For now, Town and Parish Councils remain anchored, while the tide of change moves around them.

Overview

The government has opened formal consultations on local government reorganisation in six areas. Seventeen proposals are now being tested, covering a wide range of single, two, three, four and five unitary options. The consultations will run for seven weeks until 11 January 2026.

This is an important point in the process. For months, councils have been developing and promoting their preferred models. In some cases this has led to open disagreements, including recent publicity disputes in Suffolk and Essex. With the statutory consultation now underway, the process moves from local positioning to a single national exercise run by government.

What is being consulted on

Across the six areas, councils have put forward:

• two proposals in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove

• four in Greater Essex

• four in Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight

• three in Norfolk

• two in Suffolk

• two in West Sussex

Some proposals include boundary changes that would split districts. Ministers have already said these will need careful consideration.

Why this stage matters

The statutory consultation is different from the local engagement councils have been carrying out. Government is responsible for this stage. It invites responses from councils, public bodies, partners and residents, and then weighs all evidence against the criteria set out in the reorganisation invitation.

This is the moment when ministers form a view on which proposals, if any, should go forward, and whether they should be modified. It is also the point at which earlier publicity campaigns and disputed figures are placed in a wider, more neutral context.

What councils should be aware of

With the consultation open, councils should now:

• keep communications factual and in line with the Publicity Code

• avoid material that might be interpreted as campaigning

• support residents to understand what is being consulted on and how to respond

• make sure any engagement does not cut across the neutrality required at this stage

For councils in areas where there has been public disagreement, this is especially important for maintaining trust in the process.

Why this is significant for local areas

The outcome will shape how services are organised, how decisions are taken and how local identity is reflected in future structures. It will also influence the scale and pace of future devolution.

Read the statement

Statutory position

Under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, the statutory duty to consult on structural reorganisation sits with the Secretary of State. Councils submit proposals, but central government conducts the formal consultation and takes the final decision. Councils have no statutory requirement to run their own consultation on LGR structures, although they must carry out separate processes for matters such as the creation of new parishes.

What councils are expected to do

Government and sector guidance emphasise that councils should undertake engagement, not formal consultation, whiledeveloping proposals. This includes:

• explaining the case for change
• gathering local views
• working with stakeholders
• demonstrating in their business cases how engagement has shaped proposals

Engagement is permitted and expected, but must comply with the Local Government Publicity Code, remain objective, and avoid using public funds to secure support for one reorganisation model over another.

When engagement becomes contested

Recent examples show how easily engagement can stray into accusations of campaigning.

Suffolk

District and borough leaders complained to ministers that Suffolk County Council’s “One Suffolk” campaign breached the Publicity Code and the Advertising Standards Authority code. Concerns centred on:

• claims made about projected savings and investment
• use of public funds for a campaign designed to promote a single model
• use of sponsored social media content
• commissioning external communications support to “influence” decision making

Suffolk County Council denies breaching any code and argues it is appropriate to explain its preferred model and highlight weaknesses in alternatives.

Essex

A separate dispute has arisen over Essex County Council’s leaflet promoting a three unitary model. The leaflet was posted to roughly 340,000 households at a cost just under £37,000.

Key points of contention included:

• the leaflet promoting only one of four options under consideration
• whether the leaflet clearly indicated that it was produced by Essex County Council
• claims that using taxpayer money to promote a preferred model is contrary to the Publicity Code’s requirement for objectivity and even handedness
• counter claims that other councils had publicly promoted their own preferred models through online channels

Essex County Council maintains that the leaflet is factual, complies with the Publicity Code and is intended to inform residents about a significant potential change to local services.

These two cases demonstrate how, in areas with competing proposals, engagement activity can quickly become politically charged and contested.

Why the statutory consultation sits with government

Keeping the formal consultation at national level has several advantages:

• Independence where councils disagreeCouncils within an area may support different models. A nationally run consultation avoids conflicts of interest.
• ConsistencyCentral government can run a uniform consultation process across all areas undergoing reorganisation.
• Clear accountabilityThe 2007 Act places responsibility on the Secretary of State to consult and decide, reducing risk of local challenge.
• Separation from local campaigningGovernment can discount or contextualise responses if local engagement activity is seen as partial or misleading.

Arguments for a greater local role

Some councils and people working in the sector argue that:

• councils have better access to communities and established consultation channels
• government-led consultations may feel distant or impersonal
• local authorities are better placed to interpret how views differ across localities
• limiting councils to “engagement” creates grey areas that lead to disputes, as seen in Suffolk and Essex

However, others believe that giving councils control of formal consultation would risk accusations of bias, particularly where councils support competing structures (as we are already seeing!).

Practical considerations for councils

Regardless of formal responsibilities, councils can:

• provide clear, factual information explaining the process, options and implications
• avoid slogan-led campaigns or promotional material that could be perceived as lobbying
• design engagement activities that meet recognised consultation principles (clarity, openness, fairness) even if they are not statutory
• work jointly with other councils in the area to provide neutral information platforms
• ensure communications comply with the Publicity Code, particularly around objectivity and use of public funds
• be transparent about expenditure on engagement activities.

Overall balance

The current approach seeks to balance independence and local insight:

• Government retains the statutory consultation to ensure objectivity and comparability across areas.
• Councils undertake local engagement but must avoid activities that resemble campaigning or influence the statutory consultation.

The Suffolk and Essex examples show that the boundary between engagement and lobbying can become blurred, especially where competing proposals exist. Clearer national expectations and more collaborative local communications may help reduce disputes and maintain public confidence in the process.

Read the Government letter to Council leaders

Scope

• A single standards regime is proposed for all tiers of local government in England. This covers combined authorities, principal authorities, districts, boroughs, unitary authorities, and town and parish councils.

• Ministers intend to introduce legislation when parliamentary time permits.

Core proposals

• A mandatory minimum code of conduct will be prescribed by central government.

• Councils must adopt local guidance and protocols that align with the national code.

• Every principal authority must set up a formally constituted standards committee to oversee complaints.

Conduct requirements

• The national code will set expectations for elected members’ behaviour.

• Councillors will be required to cooperate with investigations.

• Making multiple vexatious complaints will itself be a breach of the code.

Sanctions

• Standards committees will be able to suspend a councillor for a serious breach for up to six months.

• During suspension, committees may withhold allowances and apply bans on the use of premises and facilities where appropriate.

• Before imposing suspension, committees must consult at least one independent person.

Disqualification

• Current law limits disqualification mainly to custodial sentences of three months or more and to sexual offences.

• The government does not plan a new gross misconduct ground for disqualification. Instead, it will introduce interim suspension powers for cases under police investigation or awaiting sentence.

• Disqualification would apply where a councillor has been suspended twice for the maximum six months within a five year period.

Appeals

• A new national appeals function will allow councillors to appeal suspension and allowance-withholding decisions made by standards committees, after using a local right-for-review.

Consultation results

• Over 2,000 consultation responses were received from December to February.

• 94% supported a mandatory minimum code.

• Around nine in ten backed the requirement for standards committees.

Practical implications for councils

• Prepare to align local codes and guidance with a new national standard.

• Plan for a formally constituted standards committee and access to at least one independent person.

• Expect clearer powers to suspend for serious breaches, with linked decisions on allowances and access to facilities.

• Anticipate a national appeals route and keep records that support defensible decisions.

• Ensure capacity (recognising some areas have LGR limitations) to handle a likely increase in case management, especially where one authority serves many town and parish councils.

Read the Press Statement

Context

Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) often includes transferring assets and services to town and parish councils to preserve civic presence and local access. In newly parished areas, this is typically tied to the establishment of town councils with enhanced local responsibilities. Transfers of parks, halls, toilets, open spaces and community services are common.

Legal framework

• Transfers of land are made under section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972. Disposals at less than market value are lawful under the General Disposal Consent 2003 if they promote economic, social or environmental wellbeing.
• Where new parish councils are created, reorganisation orders under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 can specify transfers of assets, liabilities and staff at inception.
• Section 101 of the 1972 Act allows delegation of functions to parish councils. Alternatively, services may be withdrawn by the principal authority and taken on by the parish using its own powers.
• Section 16 agreements under the 2007 Act may be used to allocate property or responsibilities between incoming and outgoing bodies during transition.
• Statutory and charitable trusts, war memorials and covenanted land must be handled according to the law governing their use and transfer.

Legal safeguards and risks

• Directions under Section 24 of the 2007 Act prevent outgoing councils from disposing of assets or entering high-value contracts without the approval of the new shadow authority.
• Subsidy control may be triggered where an asset is transferred at undervalue and later used in a way that confers advantage on a commercial party. Most transfers to parish councils for community use fall outside scope but should be assessed. 
• VAT treatment can be complex. Parish councils have partial exemption rules and may be unable to reclaim VAT on capital works without planning. Transfers involving opted-to-tax property require advice.
• Covenants and title restrictions are often overlooked. Legal checks are needed to confirm land is not subject to reverter clauses or use constraints.
• Equality and public law duties apply. Devolution decisions must be based on fair criteria and consider the impact on protected groups and service access.
• Audit scrutiny is increasing. Undocumented transfers or asset deals without justification can be challenged. Best consideration and transparency must be demonstrated.

Practice considerations

• Start early and phase. Many areas transfer simpler assets like play areas and toilets first, with phased follow-on for more complex services.
• Work jointly with local councils. Engagement avoids poor uptake or unmanaged liabilities. In some areas, town councils have proactively identified assets for transfer.
• Prepare proper documentation. Condition surveys, maintenance costs, income records and access rights should be shared. Capacity assessments at parish level help tailor the approach.
• Bundle assets where appropriate. Grouping an income source (such as a car park) with a liability (like a public toilet) is good practice where feasible.
• Use clear agreements. Transfers should include responsibilities, limitations on use, any grants or dowry, and clawback conditions where assets are to remain in public use.
• Plan for workforce implications. TUPE may apply in some cases. Even where not legally required, good practice includes engaging staff and supporting transition.
• Avoid rushed disposal pre-vesting. Delaying transfers until after reorganisation, or securing shadow authority consent, avoids breaching controls.
• Consider long-term service stability. Town and parish councils must plan for insurance, inspection regimes, governance and audit.

Financial and governance alignment

• Avoid double taxation. Where parish councils take on functions, principal authorities must stop charging for them via general tax or reclassify them as special expenses.
• Ensure precept transparency. Local councils may increase their precept, but must explain the change and link it to visible local services.
• Audit-ready records are vital. Transfers must be legally documented and properly recorded in asset registers, with appropriate valuation.
• Support equity. Small parishes may require extra assistance. Options include capacity funding, temporary staff or delivery partnerships.

Summary lessons from past reorganisations

• Early dialogue, realistic phasing and a clear legal basis lead to smoother transitions.
• Transparency on cost, condition and legal risk protects both tiers.
• Support for local councils during and after handover – including training, transitional grants and technical advice – is critical.
• Long-term service viability and democratic accountability should be built in from the start.

Listen to Dr Thomas Foreman on the Truth Behind Local Government podcast

Overview

Councillor allowances in England vary significantly, set locally on the advice of Independent Remuneration Panels (IRPs). Basic allowances range from around £6,000 in districts to £15,000 or more in counties and unitaries. Special responsibility allowances (SRAs) add substantially more for leadership roles. There is no national baseline.

Are allowances enough?

• Inflation has eroded the real value of allowances, with many frozen during austerity years.

• IRPs increasingly recommend indexation to keep pace with costs and workloads.

• Recruitment and retention pressures are rising. Low pay deters younger, working-age and less affluent candidates.

• Some councils have acted to raise allowances to more sustainable levels. Others have resisted rises on political and financial grounds.

Impact of local government reorganisation

• Many new unitary councils created through LGR have set higher allowances than predecessor authorities, reflecting larger geography, reduced member numbers, and broader responsibilities.

• Fewer councillors now represent more residents and handle full-service workloads.

• Governance models are evolving, often with area committees, requiring new SRA structures.

• IRPs have warned that allowances must not become a barrier to participation in new councils.

Town and parish councils

• Most parish councillors remain unpaid. Where allowances exist, they are modest and only used by a small number of larger town councils.

• As responsibilities grow under devolution, there is increased pressure to revisit this model.

• Participation in new forums like Local Community Networks and neighbourhood governance adds time commitment, often without recompense.

• NALC is gathering data to inform future policy and lobbying efforts, including on carers’ allowances and the case for modest basic allowances in more active parishes.

Key considerations for councils

• IRPs are placing greater emphasis on equity, access, and representativeness.

• Structural change means allowance schemes need regular review.

• Governance decisions (e.g. committee systems or area structures) have knock-on impacts for SRAs.

• As new town and parish councils emerge, remuneration expectations may need to shift to match responsibilities.

The issue

A growing number of areas in the local government reorganisation programme want to redraw maps along parish or ward lines rather than stick to whole districts. Ministers have been urged to tread carefully, as this route is complicated by law and could stretch timetables.

Who wants what

• Of the 21 two-tier areas in scope, 13 are exploring options to split existing districts.

• Government guidance told areas to use districts as building blocks unless there is a strong case for something more complex. After interim submissions, officials said boundary changes could be delivered alongside structural change.

Statutory footing

• The Local Government and Public Involvement Act 2007 allows the Secretary of State to accept a request to create new unitaries “with or without modifications”.

• The question is how far those modifications can go when carving up districts, their assets and their debts.

Compliance concerns

• The Local Government Information Unit reviewed business cases in the devolution priority programme and queried whether the “change alongside structural reform” approach is clearly compliant with the 2007 Act.

• There is a risk that proposals are drafted to look district based on paper to pass the legal test, with boundary splitting pushed to a later stage.

Litigation and timetable risk

• Deviating from the published criteria could invite judicial review if the process appears not to have been followed.

• Adding boundary rework on top of structural change could slow the overall programme due to legal challenge and the need for ministerial approvals.

Legal views

• Splitting district boundaries means splitting district assets and liabilities as well as the county’s, which complicates the orders that set out new councils and their shadow arrangements.

City pressure for change

• A group of city councils commissioned the “Case for Cities” report which argues for city led unitaries and long term backing.

• Oxford’s leader Susan Brown said the city will seek a modification to extend to the green belt boundary to help address housing and economic constraints. She argued that county resources will be split anyway, so district splits should not be seen as an extra complication.

Alternative route

• Government has also pointed to the option of forming unitaries using full districts first, then asking the Boundary Commission to conduct a Principal Area Boundary Review afterwards.

Practical takeaways for councils

• Build legally robust cases that show why any split is necessary and proportionate.

• Budget time for consultation, drafting of orders and potential challenge.

• Map the transfer of assets, staff and debt at both county and district level.

• Engage early with neighbours where city expansion is proposed to secure visible local unity.

• Keep a fallback model that uses whole districts if ministers signal tighter interpretation of the 2007 Act.

Overview

• Government has made the first of 21 planned LGR decisions this parliament. Surrey will be split into two unitary councils, not three. Ministers say this sets no precedent and future calls will be made case by case.

The decision in numbers

• Two new unitaries with populations of about 663,000 and 551,000.

• Choice aligns with earlier preferences for councils serving populations of 500,000 or more.

Why it happened

• Ministers cite the financial resilience of larger bodies, referencing unprecedented, unsupported debt in the area. The government is also writing off £500m of Woking BC debt.

What might come next

• A recent Times report says ministers have accepted evidence that medium-sized unitary authorities (around 200,000–250,000 residents) may be the most cost-effective, and that they are looking at expanding the boundaries of cities such as Exeter, Oxford, Plymouth and Nottingham as part of wider LGR proposals.

• Labour MPs have been uneasy about very large unitaries. The party has stronger interests in several cities likely to be affected, which may tilt thinking toward smaller units in some places.

Politics and choreography

• Ministers insist there is no precedent from Surrey, yet the media briefing on 200,000 to 250,000 councils appeared the day after the decision.

• Separate reporting suggested the fair funding review may be softer on London, prompting political sensitivities that the 200,000 to 250,000 line may have helped to calm.

Local voice and consultation

• The statutory consultation summary recorded a clear resident preference for three unitaries in Surrey. Ministers chose the two unitary model. This will fuel concerns that resident views may carry limited weight in future LGR calls.

Who is watching closely

• Essex will be reading across. Questions include the treatment of Thurrock’s heavy debt and whether debt arguments could favour a three council map for Essex rather than four or five.

Practical implications for councils

• Prepare multiple scenarios. Both large and medium models remain live.

• Evidence matters. Financial viability and debt exposure are central to the case.

• Expect political context to shape timing and messaging, even where ministers stress local merit-based decisions.

• Public engagement will need careful handling given the Surrey example on consultation preferences.

What to watch in the next month

• Two tier areas outside the devolution priority programme are due to submit evidence.

• Any further signals on preferred population ranges or city boundary changes.

• How the government links debt management to map choices in other indebted areas.