LGR is a structural reform programme to simplify England's system by replacing two-tier local government (county and district) with unitary authorities. It is the fourth major wave of restructuring since 1965, announced in the December 2024 Devolution White Paper.
A single local government organisation responsible for all services in an area. It combines functions split between county and district tiers (like education, social care, planning, and waste) into one body.
Strategic reasons include: streamlining services, improving financial sustainability by removing administrative duplication, and creating governance structures strong enough for devolution.
Selected in Feb 2025: Cheshire & Warrington, Cumbria, Greater Essex, Hampshire & the Solent, Norfolk & Suffolk, and Sussex & Brighton. These combine devolution with LGR.
21 two-tier areas including Surrey (accelerated), Kent, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Lancashire, Cheshire, Cumbria, Hampshire, and Sussex.
England restructured in 1974 (establishing the current two-tier system), 1995–1998, 2009, and most recently in 2019–2023 creating unitaries like Somerset and North Yorkshire.
Scotland and Wales already use fully unitary systems. England's two-tier structure is an anomaly within the UK. Most European nations also prefer single-tier models for local services.
- Nov 2025: Final proposal deadline.
- Spring/Summer 2026: Government decisions.
- May 2027: First elections.
- April 2028: New councils operational.
Note: Surrey follows an accelerated timeline (operational April 2027).
A 5-stage process: 1) Proposal Development, 2) Public Consultation, 3) Decision & Statutory Process, 4) Secondary Legislation (Structural Changes Order), and 5) Elections & Implementation.
Options include Single Unitary (one council per county), Two-Unitary splits (e.g., East and West Surrey), or Three+ Unitary models which maintain more local identity but increase costs.
If councils cannot agree on a consensus model, the government has the power to impose a structure as a "backstop" to ensure the reorganisation proceeds according to the national timeline.
Most scheduled elections for 2025/2026 have been postponed. The primary elections for new unitary authorities will occur on 6 May 2027, with the councils becoming operational a year later.
The target is 500,000+ residents. Analysis suggests larger authorities achieve higher economies of scale. Smaller councils (300k population) can actually cost an area more due to disaggregation.
PwC and County Councils Network analyses estimate potential savings of £1.8bn to £2.9bn over five years if implemented at a large scale (500,000+ population).
This is the cost of splitting up integrated county services—especially social care—across multiple new councils. It requires duplicating management, IT systems, and admin structures, making it expensive.
Upfront transition costs are significant: IT consolidation, redundancy packages, rebranding, and office rationalisation. These often exceed initial expectations in previous reorganisations.
While the government argues LGR saves money, councils may freeze taxes during transition or face rises if costs exceed savings. Rates usually "harmonize" across the new area over several years.
Yes. Unitary authorities typically have fewer councillors than the combined totals of the previous county and district tiers. A boundary review by the LGBCE decides exact numbers later.
Parish and town councils remain. They are an opportunity to maintain community-level governance, and many new unitaries may devolve hyperlocal functions to them.
Accountability is clearer as one council is responsible for everything, but larger authorities may feel more "distant" from local communities compared to smaller districts.
These legal bodies (often with a Mayor) manage devolved powers like transport. They require constituent councils to be unitary, which is a key driver for the LGR process.
Efficiency through economies of scale, better integration of services like housing and care, financial resilience, clearer voter accountability, and greater capacity for devolution.
Risks include a loss of local responsiveness, service disruption during transition, high upfront costs, and a potential "one-size-fits-all" approach that doesn't suit diverse towns.
Via a managed transition: staff transfer under TUPE, IT systems are migrated, assets like buildings move to the new authority, and budgets are consolidated under the Structural Changes Order.
Digital transformation (merging systems), dual delivery (operating while merging), strategic collaborative leadership, and maintaining "business as usual" for residents.
Residents should see better integration (e.g., waste and housing in one place), but there may be changes to office locations, contact numbers, and unified policies for services like planning.