Smaller councils can have a “natural advantage” in bringing about the close, connected communities which give children the best possible start in life.

This is the conclusion of a report by the Staff College which sets out ways councils could potentially disaggregate existing children’s services departments when smaller unitary councils are created through local government reorganisation.

The report for the District Councils’ Network (DCN) says that both small and large councils can effectively run children’s services, adding: “The advantages of proximity to place are not outweighed by larger scale.”

“The prevailing narrative is that big is beautiful and brings economies of scale. But there is an alternative lens,” it says. “What matters is proximity to people and the places they live in, staying close to families and supporting them. Close, connected communities, coupled with strong, passionate and ambitious leadership, will give children the best possible start in life. This is where smaller councils can have a natural advantage.”

To read the report please click here.

The report notes how existing district councils possess skills and expertise in place-based leadership and convening power. It says these attributes are essential to support the necessary shift towards prevention and early intervention in children’s services, as well as co-production with children and families.

District councils already specialise in prevention. The report cites Tendring District Council’s creation of wellbeing hubs in 16 primary schools to prevent avoidable mental ill health and Cherwell District Council’s Your Move project, which works with schools, GPs and children’s services to offer free physical activities and sporting opportunities to the families needing them most.

Such early help prevents problems from tipping into crisis – which often requires costly intervention from the public sector to resolve.

The report notes the fall in spend on early intervention since 2010, which was put at 42% in a recent report by Pro Bono Economics.

“Local government reorganisation gives us a chance to do things differently,” it says. “Of course, reorganisation and disaggregation won’t be easy. We need to approach it with a full understanding of the challenges and risks. But it opens the door for new councils that are bold and ready to put prevention, early intervention and place-based leadership at the heart of their approach to children’s services.”

It calls on those seeking to create smaller unitary councils to approach children’s services with confidence and optimism.

The report suggests a series of measures to facilitate the disaggregation of children’s services. Strong leadership, with robust management oversight, is required, as is close partnership with other agencies. It also suggests that some specialised services operate best on a multi-council or regional footprint.

In response to the report, Cllr Hannah Dalton, Health, Housing and Hardship Spokesperson for the District Councils’ Network, said:

“Local government reorganisation offers an opportunity to rethink children’s services, ensuring that they’re close to communities, centred around children and families, and move to having a more preventative focus.

“District councils don’t have statutory responsibility for children’s services, but we do offer the localised, place-based leadership which gives us unrivalled knowledge of our places. This helps identify children and families needing help and can bring about the culture of early intervention we all seek.

“It’s clear that the performance of relatively small existing unitary councils on children’s services is every bit as good as that of larger councils. They have a natural advantage in bringing about connected communities with children at their heart.

“While disaggregation must be approached with care, it is clearly a viable option – one that can bring about essential change.”

DCN is pleased to publish this important new report in partnership with IMPOWER. It offers new analysis and evidence about what makes successful adult social care (ASC) services, how to identify the best model to deliver these services, and how to do this in the specific context of Local Government Reorganisation, especially where this involves disaggregating existing service footprints.

The report shows convincingly that disaggregating adult social care services can be done effectively with early planning, strong leadership and realism required to make it work. The prize disaggregation offers is a “chance to reset” services. “Done well, it may allow systems to better reflect the geographies of communities and care markets.”

The report counters the view that size is the most decisive factor in driving successful ASC services and that smaller social care footprints are bound to be less effective. IMPOWER’s analysis shows “there is no clear link between scale and overall quality of adult social care”. It notes that there are “no economies of scale in delivering personal care”, while larger systems sometimes “introduce diseconomies”.

It offers an optimistic vision for seizing LGR as an opportunity to redesign ASC services, drawing on the strengths that districts and smaller councils bring through their proximity to place and focus on prevention.

In response to the report, Cllr Hannah Dalton, health spokesperson for the District Councils’ Network, said:

“This report highlights that district councils have much to bring to the table in designing the future of adult social care – in particular, our unrivalled links our communities and our unwavering focus on prevention.

“District councils are specialists in adapting housing to ensure older people can remain independent for longer, running planning systems that encourage development to boost physical activity and overseeing wellbeing programmes to tackle obesity or mental illness. Following reorganisation, this work should be enhanced to complement and support more traditional social care work.

“Reorganisation should inject a strong sense of place into adult social care services – tailoring them to the unique needs of communities – and it must bring about a greater focus on prevention, which is the only way we can hope to tackle rising demand.

“This is where smaller councils have a natural advantage – with a localised focus on communities and close knowledge of their people and places. These attributes should be essential ingredients of redesigned and reimagined social care services.

“IMPOWER’s report confirms district councils should be confident to use their unique attributes to devise new approaches for adult social care. Services cannot go on as they are, with demand rising faster than budgets, unmet needs and low wages. It would be a mistake to simply carry forward the existing failing model at a wider scale, when a shift in approach towards prevention is desperately required.”

You can read the full report here.

You can read the DCN press release here.

“The greatest risk is losing momentum and settling for change that isn’t change. Instead, LGR must focus on a meaningful renewal and reform – driving economic growth, improving public well-being, and restoring faith in the local state,” the report says.

“Now is the time for optimism and action. By prioritising sustainable reform over short-term fixes, LGR can reshape local government into a dynamic, effective force that truly serves the people and places it is here to serve.”

You can read the report by clicking here.

• 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. 

While the housing crisis in major cities traditionally dominates headlines, the report from the District Councils’ Network (DCN) advocates a series of measures to ease the spiralling housing crisis outside of the largest conurbations.

It comes as the social housing waiting list in district council areas has swollen to 303,000 households – almost equivalent in size to the population of Manchester. Meanwhile, social housing completions in the 164 district council areas have plummeted from an average of 126,000 homes annually in the decades after World War Two to just 9,866 in 2023/24.

Just three changes would have a huge impact:

• The potential exists to build an additional 88,000 council homes in district areas by raising the threshold at which councils must set up a Housing Revenue Account. This is the complicated bureaucracy currently required to oversee large-scale council housing which piles administration costs onto councils who would otherwise be enthusiastic social housing builders. Reducing the bureaucracy removes a barrier to progress.
• An extra 8,300 affordable homes could be built annually in rural areas by closing planning loopholes that allow developers to side-step commitments to include affordable housing in new developments.
• 8,688 empty properties could be brought back into use at just 10% of the cost of new-build housing by giving councils greater powers to take action.

Cllr Hannah Dalton, Housing Spokesperson for the District Councils’ Network, said: “The housing crisis is wrecking lives and destroying communities – teaching assistants and nurses can’t afford to live where they work, young people are priced out of the place they call home, and older residents are trapped in houses too big for them to manage. This is as true in district council areas as elsewhere.

“District councils want to tackle the affordable housing crisis head-on. We have the local knowledge, the relationships, and the drive to deliver, but what we need now are the powers and resources to get the job done. The fact that just three changes could deliver over 100,000 homes demonstrates the scale of what’s possible.

“The current Government requirement to set up a complicated and expensive bureaucracy if a council has more than 200 homes thwarts many from building new council homes. If the threshold to set up a Housing Revenue Account was raised to 1,000 homes, the potential exists to build 88,000 new homes.

“We need the teeth to force developers to honour commitments to include affordable homes in developments and the ability to take on empty homes. Such measures can bring about a step change in ending the housing crisis across England.”

Responding to the report, Matt Downie, Chief Executive of Crisis, said: “No-one should be forced to endure the trauma and indignity of homelessness, especially when we have tangible solutions to provide thousands with a safe and secure home.

“Years of government inaction has created a chronic shortage of social housing which has left our housing system at breaking point. In our services we hear daily the challenges people face from being turned away with nowhere to go – people forced to heat up food on radiators while others have no option but to move hundreds of miles away from their jobs, schools and support networks to have a roof over their head.

“With homelessness at record levels, it’s clear there’s no time to waste. It’s crucial that the Westminster government takes note of these recommendations for both its cross-departmental strategy to end all forms of homelessness and its long-term housing plan. As these are the changes we need to see, so that everyone has a safe place to call home.”

The Blueprint, which draws on extensive consultation with housing providers and sector experts, sets out detailed recommendations across four key areas: increasing council-owned homes, boosting affordable housing supply, optimising the planning system, and making better use of existing homes. You can read the documents here:

DCN Affordable Housing Blueprint – full report

DCN Affordable Housing Blueprint – summary report

That is the conclusion of a report produced by the King’s Fund for the District Councils’ Network which is published today.

You can read the full report by clicking here and get a summary of the main points by reading our press release.

Below you can find the foreword to the report, written by DCN’s health spokesperson, Cllr Hannah Dalton.

Districts’ ICS empowerment can spur the prevention revolution

Cllr Hannah Dalton

Cllr Hannah Dalton, leader, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council; health spokesperson, District Councils’ Network

The quest to shift the focus of the health and care system from treating illness towards preventing it is far from easy. Making this transition was fiendishly complicated even before Covid. But the post-pandemic spike in demand for NHS services, at a time workforce and finances are stretched more than ever, offers even less room for manoeuvre.

But nevertheless prevention, in the form of a focus on population health, needs to be our shared goal. We want to prevent illness or stop it at the first opportunity rather than allow it to progress, worsening wellbeing and adding to the NHS’s workload. And we want to build places which promote happy, healthy lives.

For 40% of the English population, district councils are the lead bodies in bringing this about. We are the most localised principal authorities, have unique proximity to our communities and run the specific services that have the most significant impact on the determinants of health.

Our planners shape the places in which we live, building communities with plenty of green spaces which promote active lifestyles; while our economic development staff promote seek to overcome the joblessness and deprivation which are linked to ill health. Our welfare teams help people avoid poverty, reaching out to support the people our local insight tells us are in danger of falling into crisis, for instance by facing homelessness. Our leisure centres support our populations to be physically active and offer specific services designed to help people manage long-term conditions. District housing teams ensure that people live in safe, pleasant environments conducive to health and environmental health teams are key to ensuring public safety. We specialise in prevention.

The importance of districts’ work has been truly apparent in recent years as we worked to limit the impact of Covid-19 and have supported our local communities during the cost-of-living crisis, working with them to alleviate food and fuel poverty.

But the full value of such work has not always been so apparent to all partners within the health system. District councils – despite their immense preventative potential – have often not been front and centre within integrated care systems (ICSs).

It was to investigate the case for districts to play a full role in ICSs that the District Councils’ Network commissioned the King’s Fund to suggest how our strengths can be fully utilised and how we can work alongside partners in the health and care system to enhance population health.

The report highlights how ICSs can further integrate the work of districts, creating structures for their involvement, integrating workforces, sharing data and giving districts shared accountability in health systems.

Far from being a barrier to their participation, districts’ small size should be a strength. With ICS populations averaging over a million and districts averaging little more than 100,000, we have a unique closeness to our communities. Because we are smaller, we are more agile organisations – it’s relatively easy to pilot a particular initiative over a district footprint which may have a specific health inequality less apparent over a wider area. We have a convening power can bring together business, voluntary organisations and other service providers such as GPs in a defined geography such as a town, seaside community or rural area.

Districts often work with GPs to provide activity programmes for patients on waiting lists, or with long-term conditions. We often provide mental health support and build networks of service-users with a specific health need, often in partnership with community organisations.

In some parts of the country, districts’ full value is being utilised by ICSs. But there is no reason why existing best practice should not be utilised in all places. After all, we all share the same objectives: creating healthier, happier communities; ensuring an efficient and effective care system and – crucially – reducing the pressure on the NHS.

The DCN looks forward to working with all our partners across the health system to bring about the revolution we all seek.

Exclusive research has revealed unprecedented insight into the value people place on universal local public services and their trust in the councils providing them.

The District Councils’ Network commissioned the independent analysts BritainThinks to survey people living in the English shires about their attitudes to the local public services in their area.

BritainThinks’ polling makes clear the significant perceived value of services such as waste collection, street cleaning and leisure services which are open to all residents but have sometimes been neglected in the national debate about local government.

You can read the full report here.

BritainThinks’ full data can be read here.

And you can read DCN’s press release on the findings here.

Waste collection was the single most valued service, with 92% of people considering it essential.

The survey of 1,000 people living in English shire areas with both district and county councils also revealed a significant level of public backing and trust in district councils.

The survey revealed greater name-recognition for district councils – the most localised principal authorities – than for the far larger county councils, with 59% of residents being able to identify their district, compared to 32% their county council.

Fifty-four percent of people expressed satisfaction with their district council, compared to 46% for county councils. Meanwhile, 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.

Local government should be empowered to independently fund clean growth projects and lead the drive to hit net zero in local communities, a report from Localis, co-commissioned by DCN, today urges.

‘Mapping a route to clean local growth – clearing the path to net zero’ calls on central government to raise the floor of support to help councils deliver a decarbonised local economy and to remove the ceiling on their ambition.

• To download the report click here: Mapping a route to clean local growth

The report argues against a false dichotomy of ‘economy versus environment’ and instead says clean growth – spearheaded and catalysed by bold councils – could provide the much-needed growth gear shift which has eluded the British economy for decades.

The transformative change required to alleviate the damage of climate change should go hand in hand with the levelling up agenda to usher in more inclusive and balanced regional economies, says Localis. The empowerment of councils can galvanise improved productivity, long-term job creation in strategically important industries, improved quality of life and a better environment, as well as tackling many of the causes of the cost-of-living crisis, the paper argues.

The report also says that Local Plans – the documents agreed by councils which chart future land use – should set out how each area is to be decarbonised, for instance by demanding the highest energy efficiency standards and setting out a timetable for retrofit.

Meanwhile, the government is urged to set up a fund to support the retrofitting of housing and other buildings and to also to give local leaders autonomy to directly address this as a priority area for place-based decarbonisation.

The study examined five main economic pillars crucial to attaining net zero: housing and the built environment; energy; manufacturing; transport and infrastructure and land management and climate resilience.

It concluded that local government faces three key challenges in driving decarbonisation and delivering clean local growth: strategic planning across boundaries, addressing the skills deficit and the need to drive inward investment.  In addressing these challenges, the report authors called on local government to lean on its soft power as place leaders to drive action and to take on a whole place approach to local economic strategy.

There are five action points for local leaders.

• Rethink an area’s local plan so that it becomes the local driving force behind decarbonisation and clean growth- ensuring housing and economic needs are met sustainably. The local plan should be used to demand the highest energy efficiency standards, set out a timetable for retrofit, and become the ultimate guide to the fulfilment of your area’s net-zero goals.
• Councils should conduct green energy reviews. These should set out what community energy projects and renewable energy assets exist in the local area and provide an understanding of the potential scope for increasing local, sustainable energy generation.
• Engage local businesses, especially manufacturers, as they embark on or accelerate their passage on their decarbonisation journey. Engagement and expert advice, and a culture of cross-sector collaboration can bring about a just transition to net-zero industry.
• Review active travel policies to evaluate the scope to change the travel behaviour among parts of your local demographic which have been reluctant to adapt.
• Develop a holistic land use strategy for areas so that carbon-intensive land use is offset and meet multiple objectives to increase biodiversity, flood and climate resilience and improve food security.

Localis head of research, Joe Fyans, said: “Local authorities across the country are rightly acting to push their local economies in the direction of decarbonisation and better, higher growth.

“This report is filled with examples of councils acting within current systemic constraints to deliver net zero – using their Local Plans to push better practice in the built environment, investing locally in the generation and supply of renewable energy, working with local business to increase sustainable practice, leading a transformation in land management, and driving behavioural and infrastructural changes needed to transition justly to a net zero country.”

Cllr Sarah Nelmes, environment spokesperson of the District Councils’ Network, said: “There is huge ambition among local leaders to transform our places towards a cleaner, healthier, net-zero future – this is, quite simply, the biggest challenge our places face.

“This is a challenge local leaders can meet alongside growing their local economy. Far from decarbonisation and growth being conflicting goals, the former is a prerequisite to the latter if our local economies are to remain sustainable long-term.

“District councils have the highly-localised convening power necessary to drive behaviour change among our communities and our businesses, and to lead the drive for green growth. Our message to government is to give us the freedoms we require to get the funding for decarbonisation and in our places we will be your partners for change.”

Adele Gritten, chief executive, Local Partnerships, said: “Many of the actions required to tackle the cost-of-living crisis and greenhouse gas emissions are the same. Fundamentally, we need to become more efficient and use fewer resources.

“Energy is a key resource in this context and wholesale programmes of energy efficiency measures and active travel would save both the planet and stretched household budgets. This work is best co-ordinated locally, with local authorities leading on everything from land use to skills planning and growing the green economy.”

Cllr Paul Bettison, chairman of the Unitary Councils’ Network, said: “Unitary councils want to go further and faster with delivering green jobs and green solutions for our residents to help them reduce energy bills and to deliver our communities’ net zero targets.

“As the leaders of our respective places, we want to work with government, the private and voluntary sectors to increase the pace of change to ensure we can meet the global climate change targets.”

This new report from DCN, produced with health consultants HEC at University of East Anglia and Economics By Design, delivers strong evidence of the potential of these services to tackle health inequalities and level up our communities.

The report shows that engagement of just over 1 million of the inactive population of England in a prescribed leisure services programme could provide the following impacts over a 10-year period:

• Almost 45,000 diseases avoided
• A direct saving to the NHS of £314 million for the cost of treatment of those diseases
• 70,000 Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) gained (a year of life in perfect health is equal to one QALY)
• This QALY gain has a health value of £1 billion and economic value of £4.2 billion
• A 3.7 year reduction in the healthy life expectancy gap

DCN is now calling for health and council partners to work together to create and extend social prescription pathways and fully integrate council leisure and wellbeing services into health systems. The inactive population of just over 1 million in the report model represents referral of 154 patients from each GP surgery across England

We have produced a supplementary policy paper to accompany this report which lays out recommendations for:

• The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) to spearhead a new nationwide approach to the role of the leisure and wellbeing sector in tackling health inequalities; investing now in these services to avert bigger costs in health and care further down the line.
• Healthcare services to work with further with local councils as Integrated Care Systems develop, to enhance and maintain prescription pathways to our services

It also details:

• DCN member councils’ critical influence on wider public health through a range of services
• Case studies from across our membership demonstrating how our members imbed these services into their communities and effectively engage inactive people.

You can access this supplementary document here

This timely new report from Professor Colin Copus, Emeritus Professor of Local Politics, De Montfort University and Visiting Professor, Ghent University is an update on 2020’s ‘Bigger is not Better’. The report refreshes the evidence base on the impacts of changing local government size, and dispels the myth of guaranteed efficiency, effectiveness and cost reduction as a consequence of increasing the size of local government. The report also covers:

• The vital role districts will play in connecting communities to levelling up efforts
• The leading role districts have in fostering collaboration between councils and other organisations
• The further work needed to encourage more inter-council joint working, instead of reorganisation to achieve levelling up ambitions

The report can be read here.