Reed update provides more clarity on future for local government

Secretary of State Steve Reed announced the latest tranche of local government reorganisation (LGR) decisions last week, for Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Hampshire. To recap, the new unitary authority model will be: 5 unitaries in Essex; 5 in Hampshire, 3 in Norfolk and 3 in Suffolk. He also confirmed the government’s intention to provide at least £900,000 to each new unitary authority to help them become established – and a commitment to paying off Thurrock Council’s £200m of debt. Mr. Reed also left Sussex (including Brighton and Hove) in limbo while he ‘considers modifications that could address my concerns.’   

In these areas, local reaction has seen views ranging from support, opposition, pragmatism and the pugnacious “we’ll see you in court” from the leader of Portsmouth City Council.  

This announcement shouldn’t be seen as some background noise or bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. Embarking on the biggest shakeup to local government since the 1970s is going to affect who controls planning policy and which areas might be being primed for future growth.   

These latest decisions also contain some clues as to the government’s thinking, and what that could mean for the rest of the country. Firstly, the government appears to be comfortable creating unitary authorities that fall short in population terms of its original 500,000 criterion.  

Secondly, that it is happy to perform political surgery on existing district authorities rather than putting them whole into a new unitary area. In Hampshire, for example, some parts of the New Forest will go into the new South WestHampshire authority (also containing Southampton).  

The most important point is what it means for cities. The creation of a Greater Norwich Council (comprising the existing Norwich City Council plus parishes from Broadland and South Norfolk) could send a message to other current district authorities in larger, more rural counties that their preferred LGR options will be chosen. This would potentially spell good news for Oxford, Cambridge and Exeter, among other places.  

Although the government’s talk of ‘going for growth’ has been virtually dropped, going about it this way would go some way towards helping these areas with strategic planning, new communities and infrastructure. It is after all in cities where the housing need is most acutely felt, with rising populations both local and student.  

On the other side of the coin, it also helps ensure that the character of new rural and coastal authorities is respected and maintained.  

There is also the matter of timing. While a figure of at least £900,000 to set up a new authority is much needed, many important planning decisions will still need to be made by authorities soon to be non-existent. Shadow elections in 2027 will potentially shape the new authorities’ attitudes towards new infrastructure, but any further delays to the government’s LGR timetable could leave the whole project mired in uncertainty, not least with a General Election in 2029.  

We now wait to see what approach the government will take for Sussex, and whether it remains consistent with the pattern we have seen emerge elsewhere. The clues as to what the rest of LGR will look like are there, and the politics of the lines on the map are just as important as the question of ‘what next?’