Proposals to split county councils into smaller unitary authorities risk leading to worse social care services, higher costs, and staff shortages, according to a report released by the County Councils Network (CCN).

The CCN’s new report, ‘Local Government Reorganisation: Analysing the impact on people services’, suggests forthcoming government decisions on the size of new unitary councils will profoundly impact crucial people services. The network argues that larger-scale councils are essential to preserve service quality, prevent rising costs, and ensure financial sustainability.

The case for larger unitaries

The CCN’s research indicates that smaller unitaries would face significant challenges:

• Cost: Unitary councils with populations substantially below 500,000 could see annual additional unit costs of between £180 million and £270 million.
• Staffing: Smaller local authorities would require between 500 and 1,100 additional management and senior staff in care services.
• Performance: Larger authorities are more likely to perform well compared to smaller councils, which are generally more overwhelmed with demand.

Despite government guidance recommending councils propose populations above 500,000, the CCN notes that a number of district councils are interested in boundaries covering populations of 300,000 and under. Each of these smaller authorities would deliver social care, replacing the current single, larger upper-tier council structure.

District Councils Network rejects findings

These claims are facing strong opposition from district councils.

The District Councils Network (DCN) has rejected the CCN report’s findings, stating that existing unitary council data shows no relationship between population size and financial performance or quality of services.

Furthermore, a DCN survey conducted earlier this year demonstrated widespread opposition from district councils to large population-sized unitaries. While the survey showed 79% of district councils are not opposed to reorganisation, only 15% believe a unitary council with a population of 500,000 and above would be suitable for their area.

When asked about the appropriate size, 61% of DCN’s district members favoured populations under 400,000, with 23% preferring population sizes under 300,000.

Recommendations and comments

The County Councils Network ultimately recommends that the government avoid splitting up people-based services where possible. It urges the government to ensure population values for new unitaries meet the criteria set out in the English Devolution White Paper.

Cllr Matthew Hicks, chair of the County Councils Network: “Local government reorganisation has the potential to deliver significant benefits for local taxpayers and improve every day services residents rely on. However, it also carries with it significant risks if it’s not delivered in the right way. This report should focus minds on the impact that these proposals will have on the lives of the most vulnerable people who depend on local authority care and support day in, day out.”

“Put simply, reorganisation plans could make or break care services unless the government gets these reforms right.”

“It is therefore vital that the government sticks to the criteria it set out earlier this year whereby new councils cover populations of over 500,000 people. Considering these are the most important and expensive local authority services, ministers must ensure they rigorously evaluate all proposals and heavily weight their decisions based on the risks to people-based services.”

However, the District Councils Network argues that there is no justification for minimum population sizes, adding that district councils want to work with the government to ensure public services meet local community needs.

Richard Wright, incoming chair of the District Councils’ Network: “Any reorganisation which results in mega councils with populations of half a million people – leaving England with by far the largest councils in the western world – would lead to services like social care being far from the local communities they’re supposed to serve.”

“This has the potential to make services ineffective at responding to local needs and to result in diseconomies of scale, which harm the interests of both service users and local taxpayers.”

“A strong local connection to communities helps social care departments to intervene early and offer vulnerable people focused support. This helps to prevent ill health and therefore reduces the burden on the NHS.”