Unitarisation: What comes next?

How are the attempts of the Labour Government – or more realistically the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) – to come up with a comprehensive new local government map for England likely to work out?Well, until recently, we could have been confident of the outcome in the 21 remaining two-tier shire counties. A 500,000 population guideline appeared to be fixed in the MCHLG's thinking, although no semblance of an explanation or justification for that magic number has emerged. The die had been cast by the Surrey decision earlier this year: two unitary authorities each with populations of more than 500,000 despite pressure and evidence-based argument from some of the districts for a three-way split.But something unexpected happened when Steve Reed announced decisions for the four ‘shire counties in waiting': Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Hampshire (East and West Sussex have been put on hold). In Essex there are to be five unitaries with an average population of under 400,000. What had happened to the magic number of 500,000 written into the local government reorganisation policy from early 2025?Further analysis confirmed this departure from the previous orthodoxy. In Norfolk, three new unitaries (average size 305,000), including a Greater Norwich. In Suffolk, another three (average size 295,000) including a Greater Ipswich. In Hampshire, five unitaries (average size 310,000), including a Greater Portsmouth, a Greater Southampton and the Isle of Wight with a population of 140,000. Is there hope yet for Rutland?There is already the precedent of Tees Valley, a combined authority based on a city region and headed by an elected mayor which comprises a group of five unitary authorities, based on real places (including Stockton, Middlesborough and Hartlepool) with an average population of 120,000. What's the problem?In the minister's brief explanation of his reasoning, it became clear ‘economic development' was the decisive influence. The new unitaries should be based on areas which were conducive to economic development, typically small city regions, exemplified by the examples above. Let's recognise that this can be seen as progress of a kind, even if for the wrong reason. How much can restructuring of local government contribute to economic growth in an internationalised world – or even should its structure be designed to contribute?Those points to one side, we have not suddenly become enthusiasts for what local government reorganisation (LGR) has foisted upon us – far from it. The huge decrease in the number of councillors, the lack of attention to community identity, the dubious claims for financial savings and the lack of any mention of LGR in Labour's election manifesto, bear testimony.There are, however, some precedents for a selective introduction of unitary authorities – in the right circumstances. They used to be called county boroughs (and maybe still should) and by 1970, there were more than 80 of them in existence, some with less than 100,000 population (Barrow-in-Furness, Burnley, Burton on Trent, Halifax and many others) but no one, apart from the Redcliffe Maud Commission and the then Department of Housing and Local Government, regarded this as a problem. They were real places, with distinctive community identities and with long traditions of civic enterprise and pride. If we are going to move in the direction of LGR, let us recognise their merits.There is already the precedent of Tees Valley, a combined authority based on a city region and headed by an elected mayor which comprises a group of five unitary authorities, based on real places (including Stockton, Middlesborough and Hartlepool) with an average population of 120,000. What's the problem?And what about Telford and Wrekin, Lancaster (which has a negligible economic link to the Lancashire towns to the north), Torbay, Greater Grimsby, Greater Scunthorpe and many others waiting in the wings. Given the current convolutions of LGR, our advice would be not to start from here. But as we are already on this road, the smaller unitary option that we are suggesting looks like the ‘least worst' option'.There are more than 100 unitary authorities, MBCs and London boroughs who would be well advised to prepare for what is on its way, once the shire counties have been dealt with. There would be so many potential inconsistencies in MHCLG's Phase 2 programme that any existing authority wanting to make a legal challenge to any element of it would have a field day.Take the Tees Valley combined authority for example, currently led by an experienced and popular elected mayor. What are the options in Phase 2? If the five existing unitaries were to be merged into a single Tees Valley entity, it would presumably need a unitary of similar size to its west to enable a model of two unitaries under an elected mayor to be achieved. But this is an outcome that would be unsustainable given the vast tracts of rural Yorkshire to the west of Tees Valley. And the new combined authority would need a new elected mayor, wouldn't it? No place here for its accomplished predecessor.As we argue above, there is a potential way out of this mess. Let the smaller unitary authorities bloom (or at least survive) where there is a valid place-based case for doing so. But, whatever happens between now and the next General Election and beyond, we fear the MHCLG will be fighting, as ever, its ‘bigger is better' corner.Steve Leach is emeritus professor of local government at De Montfort University and Colin Copus is emeritus professor of local politics, De Montfort University (visiting professor Ghent University)

Title

REORGANISATION

Unitarisation: What comes next?

By Colin Copus, Steve Leach | 24 April 2026

Popular articles by Steve Leach

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING

Popular articles by Steve Leach