NINE IN TEN SURREY RESIDENTS PLAN TO VOTE IN MAY — BUT FEWER THAN HALF KNOW WHAT THEY'RE VOTING FOR

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

15 March 2026

A survey of over 1,000 Surrey residents conducted by the LGR Initiative has revLGRed a striking paradox at the heart of the local government reorganisation programme: while 89.8% of respondents intend to vote in the 7 May shadow council elections, only 44.2% say they know exactly what elections are taking place on that date.

The survey — one of the largest independent assessments of public understanding and sentiment about the programme currently available — was conducted by the LGR Initiative, an independent research and engagement platform focused on helping councillors and communities navigate reorganisation.

Key findings:

• 89.8% of respondents intend to vote in the May 2026 shadow council elections
• Only 44.2% are clear on what elections are happening on 7 May
• 56.6% actively distrust the new council structures to represent their community's interests — against just 7.4% who express any level of trust
• 54.2% expect local government reorganisation to worsen quality of life in their community; only 10.7% expect improvement
• Just 8% describe themselves as very informed about the reorganisation process
• 55.6% believe residents should have the final say on major local decisions — including council mergers — through referendums
• 58.4% want greater powers devolved to local government

The findings carry padevolved significance given the nature of the survey's respondents. As a self-selecting group engaging with a governance-focused survey, participants are likely to bgovernancee most civically engaged and politically aware residents in affected areas — and therefore among those most likely to vote in May. The data should be interpreted in that context; it is not a representative sample of the general population. However, the scale of distrust and lack of understanding even among this cohort makes the findings significant.

Rowan Cole, founder of the LGR Initiative, said:

"These findings should be a wake-up call for everyone involved in the reorganisation programme. The people most likely to vote in May — engaged, motivated residents who are paying attention — largely don't know what they're voting for, don't trust the structures being created, and expect things to get worse. If that's where the most informed cohort sits, the picture across the broader electorate is considerably more concerning.

"This isn't about blame. The pace and complexity of reorganisation have made clear public communication genuinely difficult. But the window between now and 7 May is narrow. The May elections are not just a governance mechanism — they are a trust-building opportunity, and arguably the last clear one before vesting day. That opportunity needs to be taken seriously."

Background

Surrey is the first area to proceed on an accelerated local government reorganisation timetable, with elections to two new shadow unitary authorities — East Surrey Council and West Surrey Council — taking placeunitary authorities new authorities will formally vest on 1 April 2027, replacing the existing county and eleven district councils.

The Surrey Structural Change Order passed Parliament in March 2026, with Section 24 directions uStructural Change Orderctural-change" class="glossary-link text-teal-700 hover:text-teal-800 underline font-medium" title="Learn more about Structural Change">Structural Changevernment and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 now in force — requiring existing councils to obtain written consent from the shadow authority for major financial decisions above set thresholds.

Fourteen further areas of England are currently subject to statutory consultation on reorganisation proposals, with that window closing on 26 March 2026.

The LGR Initiative is conducting its survey in partnership with the University of Surrey's Centre for Britain and Europe. The survey remains open for one further week.

— ENDS —

Notes to editors

The LGR Initiative (localgovernmentreorganisation.co.uk) is an independent research and engagement platform assisting councillors and communities to navigate local government reorganisation, with the aim of delivering better services and stronger devolution. It is operated by Coalface Engagement Ltd and conducted in academic partnership with the University of Surrey's Centre for Britain and Europe.

Survey methodology: conducted online; respondents self-selecting. Findings are not statistically representative of the general population and should be interpreted as reflecting a civically engaged cohort. Total responses: 1,000+.

Coalface Engagement (COALFACE) and the Centre for Britain and Europe at the University of Surrey (CBE) today announced a partnership to launch the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) Initiative, responding to what many regard as the most significant shake up in local governance for a generation, presenting a once-in a generation chance to unlock economic regeneration, significant housing delivery, and investment opportunities for business and communities. The programme will examine how reorganisation, approached as the redesign of a local democratic system rather than an internal corporate merger, can unlock meaningful devolution through good governance design, a clear civic purpose, and strong leadership that carries community support. It will also examine how structural change without the associated powers, capability, and legitimacy risks storing up larger problems later, including weaker delivery and missed opportunities for growth, housing, and local investment.

The Coalface-CBE partnership, also joined in varying capacities by other sector leaders, will undertake cutting edge research ahead of local elections taking place in May 2026, publishing much needed practical guidance for councillors and senior officers, and developing national recommendations on governance, devolution, delivery, governance confidence. It will start its work immediately, launching two surveys to understand current understating and perceptions of LGR, one will be for residents of LGR Surrey, and the second for Councillors and Senior Officers at theCouncillorsuthorities. A further survey will be run and published just ahead of the Local Elections in May. 

Looking closely at previous examples of where local government reorganisation has succeeded and failed, the LGR Initiative will produce a new ‘100 Days Playbook on LGR’ ahead of the May elections. Combining practitioner experience with academic rigour and policy expertise, the LGR Initiative will directly assist in the place-based government transitions taking place in Surrey by producing highly useful, practical tools for local leaders helping them to work through change, alongside evidence informing recommendations for national policy design. 

In this way, the LGR Initiative will focus directly upon the transitional decision-making environment that councillors and senior officers are currently working in, providing insight in the various changes to local government reorganisation, including member officer governance, scrutiny arrangements, organisational capacity, financial resilience, public confidence, and delivery performance. 

The LGR Initiative will be led by University of Surrey graduate and former Surrey Councillor Rowan Cole, who established public affairs consultancy Coalface Engagement in 2018, and Professor Amelia Hadfield, prominent academic as well as Founder and Director of the Centre for Britain and Europe, a Centre of Excellence based within Politics and International Relations, at the University of Surrey.

The work builds on Coalface’s LGR Series, which will serve as a foundation within the programme, providing structured analysis and practitioner focused commentary as reorganisation proposals develop, including in Surrey and other areas considering change.

Over the coming months, the LGR Initiative will:

-> Immediately conduct surveys with residents of Surrey, as well as Councillors and Senior Officers across the county to understand the current views and understanding of LGR now, and at future points in time

->Produce practitioner focused briefings and commentary for councillors, senior officers, and stakeholders navigating reorganisation in real time in the run up to the local elections in May and during the formation of the two new Surrey councils

->Conduct Interviews and roundtables in the coming weeks with senior leaders and decision makers, alongside wider sector engagement activity to help inform the production of a LGR toolkit and guide

->Publish ‘The 100 Days Playbook on LGR’, a practical toolkit intended to support councillors from day one of a new unitary authority just ahead of the Local Elections in May.

->Sennew unitaryaper setting out recommendations to the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Parliament, informed by interviews and cross sector analysis after the formation of the news East and West Surrey Council’s to help support future rounds of LGR in 2027 and beyond.

The LGR Initiative programme will test whether reorganisation is delivering its core promise: meaningful devolution that strengthens local economic capacity and improves councils’ ability to deliver services on a sustainable footing. The Initiative will examine the governance, financial, and operating mechanisms new authorities need from day one, including clear accountability, effective scrutiny, realistic delivery planning, sound financial controls, and transition arrangements that reduce the risk of acute financial distress.

The programme will also consider how digital capability and AI governance should be embedded from the outset of newly formed authorities. The Initiative will explore how new councils can build transparent and resilient decision-making systems and service models, with clear assurance frameworks for data, automation, and AI enabled services.

Stay up to date with the LGR Initiative by subscribing to our mailing list.

For further information visit www.lgr-initative.co.uk

Further information about COALFACE® can be found at https://coalfaceengagement.co.uk

Further information about the Centre for Britain and Europe can be found at https://www.surrey.ac.uk/centre-britain-and-europe

• This round of LGRLGR projected to leave most people with fewer representatives creating a democratic deficit, but has Surrey solved this?
• Attention East & West Surrey Joint Committee Members, we have a recommendation for you.
• Would you like to contribute your thoughts to the LGR Series?
• Have you made your prediction? Try out the election simulator on our website and share your predictions in the comments.

Thank You

Firstly, a sincere thank you to everyone following the newsletter and the LGR Series. The time and care that goes into producing it is significant, and your engagment genuinely makes that effort worthwhile.

If you find it useful, please do pass it on and share the newsletter with colleagues, friends and family who may have an interest in local government reform and its wider implications. --Rowan

Is Surrey’s Model for Correcting the Democratic Deficit a Template for Others?

Local Government Reorganisation is often positioned as a route to devolution and stronger local leadership. In practice, it frequently delivers the opposite. Fewer councils usually mean fewer elected Members, larger wards, and greater distance between decision makers and the communities they serve. Surrey is no exception. Among engaged community groups in the county, the discussion is no longer about whether a democratic gap exists, but about how it should be addressed.

One response has been to look downward, with calls for expanded town and parish governance, as seen in places such as Guildgovernancethis approach brings its own difficulties. Parish councils routinely struggle to fill seats. Many elections go uncontested, and vacancies can persist for long periods. In 2024, only 21 per cent of town and parish councils held contested elections. Fparish councilsc structures, on their own, do not guarantee meaningful participation or public confidence.

This exposes a more awkward question. Is elected representation, in its traditional form, the only route to democratic legitimacy in 2026?

Surrey’s emerging alternative points in a different direction. The Neighbourhood Area Committee model, now being trialled, brings togeArea Committeeembers, community organisations and service providers such as the NHS and police. These committees rely heavily on individuals with deep local knowledge and operational experience. The model is often described as technocratic, and sometimes treated with suspicion, but it is not without precedent.

The familiar defence of electoral structures is simple. If decision makers fail, they can be voted out. Appointed or hybrid bodies appear to lack that safeguard. Yet the question is whether that distinction still holds. The more important issue is not how a body is constituted, but whether it retains its social licence to operate. In some respects, this model exposes decision makers to more continuous accountability, rather than a single moment of judgement every four years.

Experience in other public services illustrates how fragile that licence can be. In policing and elsewhere, senior figures have been forced to step aside despite having no direct electoral mandate, because public trust collapsed. Informal accountability can be powerful, but only where visibility, transparency and inclusion are treated as core operating principles rather than add ons.

This is where Surrey’s approach will succeed or fail. For these structures to command legitimacy, they must actively demonstrate openness and responsiveness in practice. Governance by consent cannot be assumed. It has to be earned and maintained.

Digital engagement is central to that task. The idea that large sections of the public are digitally excluded is increasingly outdated. Census data shows very high levels of digital access across age groups, exceeding ninety per cent. The problem is rarely capability. It is communication.

Digital platforms and AI have a clear and practical role here. They provide tools to explain decision making, clarify governance changes, and reach residents who may not even be aware that elections or new structures are approaching. Messaging that fails to reach its audience is not a neutral shortcoming. It actively undermines participation. Used properly, AI can help translate complex institutional change into plain, accessible information at scale. At a time when democratic systems are routinely challenged by misinformation, public institutions have a responsibility to communicate with equal clarity and reach.

Recent polling underlines the scale of the challenge. Forty five per cent of people in the UK say they almost never trust government, and seventy nine per cent believe it needs improvement. That context cannot be ignored.

Against that backdrop, Surrey’s model has potential. In theory, these committees could offer a more transparent, agile route to decision making, with quicker access to those in authority and a stronger focus on local priorities. The continuing risk of losing public confidence creates a constant incentive to perform, rather than a deferred one.

The risk is also clear. If these arrangements embed without a coherent engagement strategy, low awareness and limited participation will quickly harden into scepticism. New councils and committees perceived as remote or poorly explained will struggle to establish legitimacy. A new authority that begins without a visible mandate starts from a position of weakness.

Media coverage has not helped. What reporting exists has focused narrowly on postponed elections, rather than on explaining the wider changes. Many Surrey residents are likely to encounter polling cards for a new council they barely recognise.

The East and West Surrey Joint Committees need to act now. Messaging must be improved, modernised and sustained. Digital platforms and AI should be used as practical tools to ensure every resident has a clear opportunity to understand what is changing and why.

Surrey may be testing a bridge between representative democracy and more deliberative, digitally enabled engagement. Whether that bridge holds will depend less on formal structures and more on how seriously communication, transparency and inclusion are treated from the outset.

Those watching from elsewhere will be paying close attention. For now I leave you to decide what kind of 'democracy' you would be happy with.

Find out more at: https://localgovernmentreorganisation.co.uk/

Setting the Direction of Travel for Surrey’s New Councils

The voluntary committees in East and West Surrey now have an opportunity to set a clear direction of travel. We are urging them to recommend that the emerging councils embed, within their constitutions, an explicit strategic commitment to future devolution, including openness to a directly elected mayor.

Constitutional wording cannot, on its own, determine structural outcomes. It does, however, establish intent and signal ambition. If such provision is not already being considered, this is the moment for the new councils to be clear that they are not closing down future governance options.

See content credentials

Why that signal matters, and what it could unlock, is something we will return to shortly.

Have you tried the election simulator?

The Simulator can be found on the LGR Hub Website

Try it out at: https://localgovernmentreorganisation.co.uk/surrey/election-tracker/simulator

Get involved, support the project

If you would like to learn more about the Surrey Reorganisation Election Model, explore opportunities to get involved, or discuss sponsorship, collaboration or partnership opportunities, I would be pleased to hear from you. The model is being actively developed, with scope to expand its application, deepen the data, and extend the approach to other areas undergoing local government reorganisation.

You can contact me at editor@localgovernmentreorganisation.com or on 020 7123 7056 to continue the conversation.

The Mission

The Local Government Reorganisation Series exists to place decision makers and affected communities at the centre of the conversation on structural reform. It provides clear, evidence led analysis of how reorganisation, devolution and electoral change operate in practice, and what they mean for local representation, accountability and service delivery. The series is intended to support informed, constructive discussion at a time of significant institutional change across England.

About the LGR Series

The LGR Series is an insight project by COALFACE, providing politically literate analysis of local government reorganisation, governance and planning reform. It is written for councillors, officers, developers and advisers navigating the transition to new unitary and mayoral structure

Disclaimer: Content is for general information only and is not a substitute for technical, planning, legal or professional advice. Coalface Engagement Ltd / COALFACE™ accepts no liability for decisions made on the basis of this material. Please contact us for advice relating to specific sites, schemes or authorities.

Published by Coalface Engagement Ltd. Coalface Engagement Ltd is the incorporated entity for all COALFACE™ branded consultancy services, including COALFACE Council Scanner™ , COALFACE Insights and COALFACE Engagement. Registered in England and Wales. Company number 11741464. Registered office: Prebend House, 72 London Road, Leicester, LE2 0QR.

© Coalface Engagement Ltd 2026. All rights reserved.

It's been a big week with Councils seeking election delays.

Local Government Reorganisation: Ten Days That Reshaped English Democracy

Blink and you will miss it. Not January, but local govelocal government reorganisationp>

Between 13-23 January 2026, a sequence of decisions marked the most consequential phase of England’s reorganisation programme since its launch in December 2024. On 22 January, the Secretary ofSecretary of Stateovernment, Steve Reed, confirmed that 29 councils would postpone their scheduled May 2026 local elections as part of the transition to new unitary new unitary. The decision affects more than four million voters and has already triggered legal challenge and sustained political scrutiny.

At the same time, in Surrey, the East and West Surrey Joint Voluntary Committees have been established. Comprising an equal split of county and district councillors, these bodies are now shaping the foundations of the successor authorities: proposing constitutions, schemes of delegation, and overseeing interim senior officer appointments. In practical terms, they are acting as the founding architects of the new councils.

Taken together, these developments raise an uncomfortable but unavoidable question. The temporary removal of the electorate’s ability to vote, the continued influence of councillors from authorities that are due to be abolished, and the risk that legacy structures and working practices are embedded into new organisations before they are electorally tested all point in one direction. Is the system, in its current form, serving democratic accountability as well as it should, or is it necessary to make this all possible and unlock the bigger prize of devolution?

Visit the LGR Series Hub

Visit the LGR Series hub to explore in-depth interviews, featured case studies, and an interactive election simulation, examining how local government reorganisation could shape the forthcoming Surrey elections and the wider landscape.

LGR SERIES | Visit our website at www.localgovernmentreorganisation.co.uk

LGR Series | www.localgovernmentreorganisation.co.uk

Elections Decision and Democratic Legitimacy

The government invited 63 councils affected by Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) to consider whether postponing their May 2026 elections would help release capacity to deliver structural reforms. Councils were asked to respond by 15 January 2026.

Of those invited, 29 councils confirmed requests to delay elections by one year, citing resource pressures and the challenge of holding polls for councils that may soon be abolished. The majority of these councils are Labour-led, with a smaller number under Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green or independent control. The last time many of these seats were up for election was a high water mark for Labour, and many of them are in traditional Labour strongholds, which explains why that's the case.

The government’s position is that postponement in these areas will avoid diverting capacity from complex transition work and prevent elections to bodies that will rapidly cease to exist under the new unitary arrangements. Ministers have emphasised that other local elections not impacted by reorganisation will proceed on 7 May 2026. Four Councils were even asked to clarify their request for a delay by Steve Reed.

The decision has drawn political controversy. Reform UK has launched a judicial review, with a High Court hearing scheduled for 19–20 February 2026, challenging the legality of delaying elections and arguing that postponement undermines democratic accountability.

Opposition parties and electoral oversight bodies have warned that delaying elections on this scale risks damaging public confidence in local democracy. The government has pointed to precedent for postponements where LGR is underway and maintains that decisions have been locally led and evidence-based.

The question is whether a lack of capacity is really a good justification to deny people a basic democratic right? Had a General Election been called, there wouldn't be a choice. In American Trump's hint at cancelling the mid-terms has drawn outrage from democracy lovers, and yet here it wouldn't even register in most voters minds. The postponement of elections has also been evidenced to suppress turnout among voters who lose trust in the system.

So, is it right or wrong to postpone or cancel elections? The arguments are finally balanced, and I will leave you to make up your own mind. Let me know your thoughts in the comments.

LGR Podcast: Democracy Delayed?

Across England, mayoral contests are being pushed back, council elections postponed, and existing leaders are carrying on in office long after voters expected to have their say. The machinery of local government keeps turning, budgets are set, decisions are made, but the mandate behind those decisions starts to look increasingly thin.

To help unpack all of this, from the tactical arguments about ‘flexibility’ to the bigger questions of democratic legitimacy, Rowan Cole, LGR Series Editor, is joined by Oliver Deed, Managing Director of E.C.F., wdemocratic legitimacy councils navigating reorganisation, devolution deals and the messy realities of implementation

LGR Podcast: Democracy on hold?

Regional Reorganisation Progress and Local Dynamics

Different parts of England are progressing unevenly through their reorganisation trajectories:

• In several areas, such as Surrey, transition work is advancing with joint committees and early planning structures preparing for new governance arrangements over the coming months.
• Some councils outside the 29 requesting delays have elected to proceed with May 2026 elections, emphasising the importance of upholding scheduled democratic processes even amid structural reform.
• Other areas continue to negotiate proposals for unitary configurations, with differing models under consideration.

Promised Efficiency in Action?

Government commentary that streamlined governance could yield substantial benefits in areas like planning may have some evidence to back it. In recent research LGR Series has found that while LGR usually suppresses planning capacity in the short term, there are cases, where done properly it enhances delivery in the longer term. Among those LGR councils sits Cornwall, which illustrates the point. After early speculative applications and policy gaps following its 2009 merger, the unitary structure later supported large strategic projects such as garden villages.

The Series has examined four of the new LPAs and found evidence that larger councils systematically improve approval rates, but that democratic accountability remains weak and highly context‑dependent, which has a negative effect. Watch for our full report on this soon.

Outlook and Constitutional Questions

Government consultations on further aspects of reorganisation are expected in February 2026, with formal decisions on unitary proposals anticipated through spring and summer 2026.

The upcoming High Court hearing will be a pivotal test of whether the government's approach to election timing in the context of structural reform can lawfully balance administrative efficiency with democratic rights. The outcome will have direct implications for governance in the areas undertaking reorganisation, collectively encompassing more than 20+ million residents.

This period has transformed what began as an administrative restructuring into a substantive debate on democratic participation, legal authority and the practical sequencing of reform in contemporary English local government.

Get involved, support the project

If you would like to learn more about the Surrey Reorganisation Election Model, explore opportunities to get involved, or discuss sponsorship, collaboration or partnership opportunities, I would be pleased to hear from you. The model is being actively developed, with scope to expand its application, deepen the data, and extend the approach to other areas undergoing local government reorganisation.

You can contact editor@localgovernmentreorganisation.co.uk to continue the conversation.

The Mission

The Local Government Reorganisation Series exists to place decision makers and affected communities at the centre of the conversation on structural reform. It provides clear, evidence led analysis of how reorganisation, devolution and electoral change operate in practice, and what they mean for local representation, accountability and service delivery. The series is intended to support informed, constructive discussion at a time of significant institutional change across England.

About the LGR Governance Series

The LGR Governance Series is an insight project by COALFACE, providing politically literate analysis of local government reorganisation, governance and planning reform. It is written for councillors, officers, developers and advisers navigating the transition to new unitary and mayoral structures.

Disclaimer: Content is for general information only and is not a substitute for technical, planning, legal or professional advice. Coalface Engagement Ltd / COALFACE™ accepts no liability for decisions made on the basis of this material. Please contact us for advice relating to specific sites, schemes or authorities.

Published by Coalface Engagement Ltd. Coalface Engagement Ltd is the incorporated entity for all COALFACE™ branded consultancy services, including COALFACE Council Scanner™ , COALFACE Insights and COALFACE Engagement. Registered in England and Wales. Company number 11741464. Registered office: Prebend House, 72 London Road, Leicester, LE2 0QR.

© Coalface Engagement Ltd 2026. All rights reserved.

A recent discussion featuring Coalface Director Rowan Cole examined how Local Government Reorganisation is progressing as it moves from design into delivery.

The session explored why election delays, changing national signals and variable local readiness matter in practice, particularly for governgovernancelity, leadership confidence and decision making capacity. Contributors reflected on how these factors are already shaping outcomes for councils navigating reorganisation.

The discussion forms part of the wider LGR Governance Series, which looks beyond structural reform to examine the practical conditions needed for reorganisation to support effective governance and planning performance.

Welcome to 2026.

If 2025 was dominated by speculation and positioning, this is the year Local Government Reorganisation moves from concept to lived reality.

The Government’s pre Christmas announcements (see below for details) clarified two things at once. The funding is real. The timetable is not. For much of the South East the transition will be longer, more complex and more politically exposed than many had assumed.

So what should you expect this year, and when?

Read or listen to our recent articles by visiting localgovernmentreorganisation.co.uk

Devolution without momentum

In December 202Devolutionpan class="ql-size-large" style="background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);"> MHCLG confirmed a £6 billion, 30 year funding settlement for six fast tracked devolution areas, including Sussex, Hampshire and Essex.

Alongside that commitment came a significant recalibration. Ministers are now considering delaying the first mayoral elections in complex two tier areas until May 2028. Alongside that 63 Councils in areas that will undergo LGR could be postponed, although reports today suggest many will opt to face the electorate. That means for some lucky Councillors, they wont have face a public vote in over six years. (TCouncillorsic rights and wrongs of this we will be returning to later this month).

The implication is clear. Government wants reorganisation substantially complete before mayors take office. For areas moving to unitary status the interim period has been extended, a delay, that followinunitary> our recent discussion, I know that Tim Oliver OBE will been keen Surrey avoids.

What this means in practice is a prolonged phase in which legacy councils wind down, shadow structures take shape and authority is dispersed. This is not a neutral holding pattern. It is an operational vacuum in which decision making slows, accountability blurs and risk accumulates.

Why the Mayor matters

May 2026 and the political danger zone

For Surrey, electing Shadow Authorities this year, May 2026 is the inflection point.

As former Elmbridge Councillor Andrew Kelly set out in our recent interview, the moment the Shadow Authority is elected the system enters its lame duck phase. Dozens of district councillors will remain in post for a further year, knowing they will not sit on the new authority.

The incentives change immediately.

Planning committees are the clearest pressure point. Members seeking selection or visibility in the new unitary wards will be under pressure to demonstrate a record. That often translates into more interventionist and more populist decision making.

The normal checks on behaviour weaken. Group discipline frays. Officers are left managing increased volatility with diminishing political cover.

If you are promoting or advising on applications during this period, assume heightened risk and less predictable outcomes.

You can model the outcome of the Surrey Elections using the new COALFACE election tracker.

Governance is not an abstract concern

In our final interview of 2025, former chief executive Robert Moran was explicit. This transition is not simply administrative. For statutory services, governance failure can be existential.

That applies equally to planning, regeneration and growth. The new funding settlements for combined authorities such as Sussex and Brighton and Hampshire are substantial. They cgovernance opportunity. But money does not compensate for weak structures.

For 2026, the defining test for Shadow Authorities is delegation. Are they focused on strategic infrastructure, delivery pathways and organisational clarity, or are they still expending political capital on inherited minutiae.

Moran’s benchmark remains the right one. If senior time is still being absorbed by legacy disputes and low level operational issues, the transition is already off course.

The digital constraint

As new unitary structures take shape, friction is inevitable. Government rhetoric suggests mayors will inherit systems ready to perform. The operational reality is more prosaic.

Do not expect seamless digital convergence on vesting day. 2026 will be characterised by lift and drop. Legacy systems will be carried forward, stitched together imperfectly and asked to perform at scale. This is something at length with Eric Owens MBA MA MRTPI which is the next article to be published.

For planning applicants, that has practical consequences. Validation delays, consultation slippage and unclear reporting lines should be assumed, particularly for major or complex schemes. Officers will be operating in grey zones where accountability and workflow do not yet align.

Programme assumptions should reflect that reality.

The year ahead

2026 is the year the map changes. With around £200 million a year flowing into new devolved regions, the prize is significant. The conditions for regeneration, infrastructure delivery and housing growth are real.

But access to that opportunity runs through a period of political instability, elongated transition and uneven governance capacity.

This is the space we will continue to track closely throughout the year.

The LGR Series is here for the year ahead. Don't forget to follow Local Government Reorganisation for updates throughout the week.

Get Involved

If you would like to learn more about the Surrey Reorganisation Election Model, explore opportunities to get involved, or discuss sponsorship, collaboration or partnership opportunities, I would be pleased to hear from you. The model is being actively developed, with scope to expand its application, deepen the data, and extend the approach to other areas undergoing local government reorganisation.

You can contact me at rowan@coalfaceengagement.co.uk or on 020 7123 7056 to continue the conversation.

The Mission



The Local Government Reorganisation Series exists to place decision makers and affected communities at the centre of the conversation on structural reform. It provides clear, evidence led analysis of how reorganlocal government reorganisational change operate in practice, and what they mean for local representation, accountability and service delivery. The series is intended to support informed, constructive discussion at a time of significant institutional change across England.

About the LGR Governance Series

The LGR Governance Series is an insight project by COALFACE, providing politically literate analysis of local government reorganisation, governance and planning reform. It is written for councillors, officers, developers and advisers navigating the transition to new unitary and mayoral structures.

Disclaimer: Content is for general information only and is not a substitute for technical, planning, legal or professional advice. Coalface Engagement Ltd / COALFACE™ accepts no liability for decisions made on the basis of this material. Please contact us for advice relating to specific sites, schemes or authorities.

Published by Coalface Engagement Ltd. Coalface Engagement Ltd is the incorporated entity for all COALFACE™ branded consultancy services, including COALFACE Council Scanner™ , COALFACE Insights and COALFACE Engagement. Registered in England and Wales. Company number 11741464. Registered office: Prebend House, 72 London Road, Leicester, LE2 0QR.

© Coalface Engagement Ltd 2026. All rights reserved.