• DCN supports devolution and wants more power to be transferred to our local places. We broadly welcome the proposals in the English Devolution White Paper to create Strategic Authorities across England. 

• However, DCN has real concerns about the way the Government intends to reorganise local government. 

• DCN thinks there is a case for considering whether reorganisation of councils beneath the Strategic Authority level could help deliver devolution or other benefits. DCN is not opposed to Local Government Reorganisation on principle. However, DCN’s strong view is that any reorganisation must: 

• • genuinely enhance local services and local democracy;  

• • be broadly supported by local residents; and 

• • be designed in close collaboration with and have the agreement of the whole local government sector, including district councils. 

• DCN is concerned that the White Paper will not deliver the right type of reorganisation. In particular, the emphasis on creating unprecedently large unitary councils with an arbitrary minimum threshold of 500k population and no reference to the size of the geographic area or other local circumstances is highly problematic.  

• Very few existing unitary councils have a population over 500k. The average population of county-area unitaries created between 1990 and 2023 is 288k. There is no clear basis for the Government to propose a minimum threshold almost twice as large. 

• DCN’s view is that large councils of 500k plus population are unlikely to work because they would be remote organisations with a weak link to local places and little capability to deliver the place-based services that are essential for creating jobs, growth, better health and more prosperous communities: 

• • This is especially true in the countryside where bigger councils in large, sparsely populated areas will further undermine rural communities’ access to services and democracy. 

• • It would also risk diluting the growth prospects and strategic position of cathedral cities and other high-growth places in district areas. 

• DCN disagrees with the Government’s suggestion that there are too many councillors in England and that cutting their number will increase democratic accountability. We are concerned that large councils would make it difficult to retain current levels of democratic representation and would risk eroding local democracy: 

• • District councils have a much lower number of residents per councillor than unitary councils: 2,874 vs. 4,630. They also have smaller ward sizes. This makes it easier for residents to access their local elected representatives and for councillors to know and represent their residents and their often-complex needs. 

• • Creating single county unitary councils and preserving the current resident/councillor ratio for unitary councils would require more than 150 councillors for a new unitary council in most county areas and more than 200 councillors in the biggest counties.  

• In DCN’s view there is no good evidence to support the Government’s stated reasons for pursuing reorganisation on a large footprint: 

• • Efficiency savings: it is certain that reorganisation will bring substantial upfront costs. It is much less certain and, in many cases, unlikely that savings will materialise in the real world at the quantum and in the timeframe the Government hopes for. Recent experience of creating larger unitary councils shows it is not a panacea for dealing with deep financial problems in the sector, let alone delivering net savings. 

• • Service transformation: most of the council services on which residents and businesses rely are frontline, place-based services that are most effectively delivered by organisations close to local communities. Creating large unitary councils would leave no localised bodies to concentrate on service delivery. A prolonged period of organisational upheaval would distract councils from the important job of delivering new homes and jobs, improving health and tackling inequality. 

• • Workforce resilience: there is no evidence that the challenges in recruiting and retaining high-calibre staff are confined to smaller councils or would be reduced by creating larger councils. In the short to medium term it is very likely that the prospect of reorganisation will make recruitment even harder, especially in roles and professions that are important for delivering housing and growth. 

• • Simplicity and accountability: there is no evidence that citizens find two-tier government confusing. District councils have higher levels of resident satisfaction and trust than other parts of government. The international evidence is much clearer that larger councils tend to have a negative impact on democratic accountability, especially trust in councillors, public engagement and voter turnout. 

• Finally, DCN is concerned that the White Paper proposals include no role for local public consultation on reorganisation proposals. They do not contain any binding provisions that reorganisation proposals must have wide collective buy-in from all local councils in the area.  

 The changes we are seeking 

• DCN believes there could be merit in reorganisation if it is done in the right way and meets key tests. These are that any proposals must: 

• • have real local buy-in from residents and from a wide range of councils and other public service organisations in the area. Local areas should be free to decide what is best for them and should not have arbitrary criteria or rigid solutions imposed by central government. 

• • keep local government genuinely local and connected to local places. 

• • preserve real local democratic accountability and ensure residents continue to have a demonstrably close link to the councillors who represent them. 

• DCN wants to support all two-tier areas to secure a devolution deal and a reorganisation approach that works for them. We believe that in most places that would mean any new unitary council should be smaller than 500k population. 

• DCN asking for your support to: 

• • give local places the space, time and flexibility to come up with proposals that reflect local circumstances and have genuine buy-in from all local councils in the areas. 

• • remove arbitrary, centrally directed criteria such as fixed minimum population sizes that would create large, remote, less accountable councils. 

• In short, DCN wants to make a positive case for the right type of structural reform that preserves and deepens the value currently delivered by district (and other smaller) councils. This value stems from district councils’ influence over place and our detailed knowledge of our residents and communities. 

How you can support district councils in your area 

• If your local district or unitary councils are concerned about the Local Government Reorganisation proposals in the White Paper, we encourage you to work closely with them to understand what their concerns are and to push ministers to accept a better proposal that works for your area. 

• This briefing note includes some of the points you may want to make in your engagement with ministers and in parliamentary interventions.  

• DCN is available to support you with more detailed briefing to support you with written and oral parliamentary questions or with other parliamentary debates. Please contact dcn@local.gov.uk  

• We have included additional supporting material in the section below. 

Supporting information 

 Efficiency savings 

• The argument that Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) will inevitably bring substantial cost savings is weak: 

• • It is certain that reorganisation will bring substantial upfront costs e.g. redundancy, consultancy, set-up costs. It is probable that the upfront cost will be £20m or more in most county areas. 

• • It is much less certain and, in many cases, unlikely that savings will materialise in the real world at the quantum and in the timeframe projected.  

• • The Government is relying on the 2020 County Councils’ Network/ PwC report. This claimed that LGR could – in a best case – deliver £3bn net savings over 5 years and a recurring saving of £700m per year. But this report is very old and significantly overstates the likely savings, in particular: 

• • • It predates the surge in demand for adult social care, children’s services, SEND and temporary accommodation, which is expensive for councils to meet and reduces the scope for efficiency savings. 

• • • Many councils in two-tier areas have already delivered significant efficiency savings since 2020, for example by creating shared services or shared management teams. 

• • • The analysis does not factor in further efficiency savings that could be made by existing councils without the need for reorganisation. 

• • • The analysis does not sufficiently factor in optimism bias nor does it cover the real cost of recent unitarisation. 

• • Recent experience of creating larger unitary councils shows it is not a panacea for dealing with deep financial problems in the sector, let alone delivering net savings. For example, one new unitary council is receiving almost £80m in Exceptional Financial Support from the Government in 2024-25 compared to the almost £20m per year savings forecast when it was created in 2023. 

• International evidence consistently shows councils of all sizes can be efficient, effective, perform well and reduce costs. 

• DCN disagrees that the two-tier system comes with a substantial cost premium: 

• • Total aggregate net revenue budget for the 164 district councils in England is only £3.6bn. This is only £182 per resident. It is only 2.5% of total local authority net expenditure in England. 

• • Less than 20% of district council funding comes from the Exchequer.  

• • Less than 10% of the total council tax precept in two-tier areas goes to district councils. In many places the district precept is lower than the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCCs) precept. In some cases it is lower than the town/parish council precept. Town/parish councils and PCCs both have greater flexibility than districts to increase council tax. 

• • Districts deliver a wide range of value-adding, frontline services and are good value for money. 

 Democratic accountability 

• International evidence consistently shows that local democracy and citizen engagement is more likely to be damaged the larger local government becomes.  

• Local government in England operates in a highly centralised system and is poorly placed in the international Local Autonomy Index when compared to other nations. 

• More detail is available in two reports: Bigger Is Not Better (2021) and Bigger Is Still Not Better (2022) 

• Local Government Reorganisation is almost certain to dilute the resident/councillor ratio in England. One of the strengths of district councils and the two-tier system is the close link between councillors and the residents they represent. 

• Councillors are more often than not community champions first and foremost before they are politicians. The loss of hundreds, if not thousands, of community champions is likely to have a serious negative impact on community cohesion. 

• Creating large unitary councils is likely to mean that councillors represent much larger wards. This will bring a larger volume of casework, which will be more complicated because it will cover the wide range of services currently provided by districts as well as social care, children’s services and other ‘upper tier’ services. 

• District councils have a significantly lower ratio of residents per councillor than existing unitary councils, London boroughs or metropolitan districts: 2,874 vs 4,630 (average for all types of unitary council).  

• • If single county unitary councils were created, they would need to have significantly more than 100 councillors per council to preserve the current resident/councillor ratio for unitary councils. 

• • In most county areas, councils would need to have more than 150 councillors to preserve the ratio. In the biggest county areas there would need to be more than 200 councillors. 

Electoral Quotient Data 

Source: Local Government Boundary Commission for England 

* Includes larger unitary councils typically formed from amalgamation of former district councils and a single former county council e.g. North Yorkshire Council, Cornwall Council.  

** Includes smaller unitary councils typically formed from amalgamation of former district councils and part of a former county council e.g. North Northamptonshire, West Berkshire and also smaller city/town unitaries e.g. Peterborough, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Brighton & Hove 

To maintain the same ratio of representation as existing unitary district, metropolitan districts and London boroughs (4,630 residents per councillor), a single county unitary would require the following number of councillors: 

Resident satisfaction 

• Polling conducted for DCN by BritainThinks in 2023 revealed greater name-recognition for district councils than for the far larger county councils: 59% of residents were able to identify their district, compared to 32% their county council. 

• 54% of people expressed satisfaction with their district council, compared to 46% for county councils. 63% of people described their district council as high-quality. 

• Districts were more trusted to boost local pride, bring local people’s views into decision making, tackle social issues and respond to local emergencies than county councils or national government. 

In this briefing note we detail some of our major concerns that arise from the three recent Defra waste service design consultations on consistency in recycling, Extended Producer Responsibility, and the introduction of a Deposit Return Scheme.

The DCN is committed to providing a sustainable waste system and agrees with the collection of the identified core set of recyclable materials. However, we wish to see an approach that truly focusses on waste minimisation across the whole system, and one that recognises the importance of Local Government input and discretion in delivering these services that are so determined by local context.

We consider that many of the current proposals will not truly address prevention of waste in a fair manner, greatly remove local control, and are unfeasible given the timelines and costs involved.

In this briefing note, aimed primarily at parliamentarians we make the case for the crucial role leisure services can play in the recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, in terms of tackling growing health inequalities and getting the nation active again. We’re calling for a national leisure strategy focused on the role of leisure services in combatting obesity and the mental health crisis.

This can only be done though if the immediate leisure funding crisis is addressed. This briefing lays out the urgent threat to leisure centres, with one in three councils expecting to have to close centres permanently, and the majority having to make harsh cuts to services. We ask government to consider a financial rescue package to save these vital services.

Districts are the local leaders for economic development and regeneration. Developed as part of our work with MHCLG to inform the local recovery, this briefing sets out what districts can do to help the national economy recover one local economy at a time, and what districts need from government to do so.

As proven again by the response to the Covid-19 crisis, districts know and understand their businesses, colleges, and residents and therefore play a key role in recovery with the use of local knowledge.

In this short paper we have set out some offers and asks that help ensure investment in skills and employment support is best able to project and create jobs.

This DCN brief focuses on supporting the visitor economy, particularly in rural and coastal areas. It highlights key challenges facing the visitor economy as highlighted by our members. Additionally, this brief outlines clear steps the Government can take to support this sector and how districts can play a part in the support.