In the latest twist of the saga that has engulfed Westminster’s attempt at local government reorganisation (LGR), we have seen progress in some areas but further delays in others amid threats of legal challenges.

The UK Government announced on 29 October it is ‘minded to’ proceed with LGR in five areas: East Sussex and Brighton and Hove; Gloucestershire; Oxfordshire; Warwickshire; and Worcestershire. 

There will be a minimum three-week period for further representations before final decisions are taken on these five. For the remaining 15 areas in the LGR programme, ministers have committed to an outcome by early next year.  In all areas (except Surrey) shadow council elections will now take place in May 2028, with new unitary authorities operational from 2029.

The announcement looks, on the surface, like a programme back on track after decisions were withdrawn in Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, as well paused in 14 other areas, following “updated and privileged” legal advice being provided to government in September. 

It is not quite that. Look carefully at the architecture of what was decided – and, crucially, what was not – and there are significant signals about what went wrong the first time around, and what it means for the areas still waiting.

What the five-area announcement really says about the original decisions

One of the five areas, Brighton and East Sussex, is a completely new announcement. The other four are counties – Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire – where prior decisions had already been taken in July. 

Yet all those are now being framed as 'minded-to' decisions, with further engagement to be undertaken before final arrangements are drawn up.

This is likely to mean that any challenge to those decisions could be made within three months of the new final decision, notwithstanding the deadline for a judicial review of any previous decisions having already passed. 

The pattern across the announcement points to a tacit acknowledgement from the government that underlying decision-making was flawed in relation to those areas. 

Judicial reviews were launched against the government by many of the 14 areas where decisions were withdrawn last month. Throughout the pre-action processes prior to the launch of formal legal action the government refused to disclose the basis for its decision-making. 

The three areas that did not threaten legal action – Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire – are all among the five proceeding, yet even they are subject to a fresh engagement period and a new final decision. This doesn’t feel like a coincidence.

Withdrawing decisions in relation to the remaining areas does not automatically deal with any related judicial reviews, but we can anticipate the government will seek to conclude any claims by consent with the local authorities involved, although it is likely to need to bear the legal costs incurred to date.

What happens next for the remaining 15 LGR areas?

The pause that endures for the remaining nine areas created immediate legal complications when it was announced. Claims for judicial review must be issued no later than three months from the date of the decision and councils could not assume that the government's review stopped time running. The deadline for launching judicial reviews of the July decisions was 16 October. Councils therefore had to issue protective legal proceedings even as ministers reviewed the programme, simply to preserve their position.

However, the nine areas where decisions have now been withdrawn – Derbyshire and Derby; Devon, Plymouth and Torbay; Hertfordshire; Kent and Medway; Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool; Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland; Lincolnshire; Nottinghamshire and Nottingham; and Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent – remain under consideration, with all options still on the table. 

A similar process is faced by the four areas where decisions were withdrawn in September (Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk), along with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, plus West Sussex, which are still awaiting first decisions.

Whatever is announced in January will likely be 'minded-to' decisions rather than final ones. There is also a legitimate argument that areas where decisions have been withdrawn can expect a full and meaningful consultation process before any fresh decision is confirmed – not simply a brief engagement window.

The human and financial cost of LGR limbo for councils

The human and financial costs of this extended uncertainty are real. Councils that engaged consultants, seconded officers and established programme governance structures are now in limbo, with costs continuing to accumulate and contracts being extended. 

All areas with previous decisions will receive £450,000 per the number of previously announced new unitary authorities from the £63m capacity fund, to cover costs incurred in implementing LGR. That is welcome, but it does not fully address the financial strain on councils – particularly those already in difficulty and looking to LGR as part of a longer-term solution to their financial sustainability.

There is also a workforce dimension. Recent research by executive recruiter Tile Hill found that 70% of senior officers were concerned about staff leaving because of proposed changes, and 47% had already seen increased turnover attributed to LGR. Elected members returned at the May 2027 elections on existing boundaries face the prospect of serving only until 2029, and during 2028-29 with a shadow authority in place taking key decisions; raising real questions about the depth of engagement and institutional continuity available to councils during this transitional period.

Why LGR isn’t going away

Despite all this, the direction of travel is unambiguous: LGR is continuing. Ministers have confirmed that the programme is continuing and remains aligned with the wider plans to shift power out of Westminster and back to local communities. 

Andy Burnham has put devolution at the heart of his reform agenda and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority he led as Mayor comprises 10 unitary authorities. Given much of his national governing agenda is based on ‘Manchesterism’ principles, we can guess his preference will be to abolish two-tier local government for devolution to work as he intends. 

Councils in every affected area should therefore continue their preparatory work – financial analysis, service mapping and workforce planning – regardless of ongoing uncertainty about the precise footprint.

The government's task for the remaining 15 decisions is equally clear. The case law on LGR decisions is broadly supportive of government action – provided decisions are rational, evidence-based and accompanied by a process the decision-maker is willing to disclose and defend. 

It seems likely, given the further engagement being undertaken in respect of the five areas, that there will be additional procedural steps taken before final decisions are adopted in relation to the other areas. The events of the past two months demonstrate what happens when that standard is not met from the outset.