Just after the local elections at the start of May I had the opportunity to take part in a discussion organised by the Institute for Government as part of their “Inside Briefing” podcast series. Alongside Vicky Elliott and Akash Paun (from the IfG) and Heather Jameson (editor of the MJ) I had the opportunity to grapple with what the election results, wider developments in the sector, might mean for how plans for LGR develop and solidify in the coming months.
For me, there were five main takeaways from this conversation.
First, councils are facing a steep learning curve as a result of the recent political change, irrespective of their political dynamic. We now have an unprecedented number of new councillors in leadership positions, and member turnover overall has been very high. More than half of English councils are now under “no overall control”. For these councillors - and for the council officers supporting them - there is a significant challenge to get to grips with “business as usual” alongside a programme of work as complex as LGR.
Second, we need to be clear about the objectives of the exercise. Is LGR about saving money? Is it about large-scale transformation of services? Is it about wider public service reform? Is it about reorganising boundaries in order to unlock growth opportunities around large conurbations?
The answer to these questions will be different for every area - every area needs to articulate its own distinct drivers (and, indeed, has been doing through the proposals process). The key task will be to ensure that once Government decides on boundaries, individuals and institutions are able to coalesce around a single, positive message about the impacts and outcomes of LGR - a message that defines some clear, practical outcomes. In doing so, there will need to be an understanding that many outcomes will be long term, delivered as part of redesign and transformation activity carried out long after the new councils have come into being. And, importantly, those outcomes will need to be underpinned by the presence and understanding of a robust financial baseline.
Third, there is a need to recognise and act on the constraints and risks that run through the process - where possible, pre-empting them.
Political risk, and a lack of political commitment to LGR, is likely to be an issue. The need here is not to ignore elected members’ principled opposition to change but to understand how the process can be designed to draw out and engage with what that opposition is, while undertaking the legal steps required to deliver a safe, legal and orderly transition of services into a new authority. Whether and how LGR happens is ultimately within the gift of Government - but many concerns about its impacts can be dealt with by constructive, local action.
A big risk also lies in the presence and transfer of financial liabilities into the new councils. There are councils undergoing LGR with recognised, or emerging, financial challenges that could cause successor councils big problems right from the start. Understanding and mitigating these risks through robust medium-term financial plans will be critical.
Fourth, ownership of change is vital. This requires support around relationship-building and leadership at the local level. Given the competitive nature of the process and the potential disputes around the outcome of Government’s decision, there is a need to invest time, and quickly, in developing a meaningful sense of place for the new areas. This is not about supplanting historic local connections but about creating a new sense of common purpose across a different area. This will be really difficult but it’s the only way that the kind of major post-LGR transformations mentioned above are going to be possible.
Fifth and finally, more systematic national support is needed. Councillors and officers will be really feeling the strain over these changes. LGR is one of a number of major, stretching pressures on the sector at the moment.
With proper planning it could shift from being seen as yet another call on pressured time and resources to an enabler for change and improvement. If we are to see LGR as an enabler, it’s likely that the scope and nature of the support available and provided nationally will need to mature. In particular, support will have to recognise the real personal stresses that individual councillors and officers will be under as a result of these changes.
It is easy to place a negative lens on LGR - both the process and the likely outcome. While many have been willing to make the positive case for change, recent months have knocked confidence and commitment in the sector, producing an environment of gloom about LGR, its implications and outcomes. But this does not need to be the case. LGR is a process that will bring opportunity - not least the chance to create a number of brand-new local institutions from the ground up, an opportunity that we have not had on this scale for more than fifty years.
You can listen to the full podcast recording here:
May 2026 elections: What are the implications for local government reorganisation?
If you would like to discuss how we can help you local area navigate one or more of these five areas, please get in touch - I’m at ed.ta.hammond@cfgs.org.uk