With brand new councils set to be created across England, we’ve compiled a handy guide to all the reorganisation plans submitted to the Government.
The changes affect the six areas accepted onto the Government’s Devolution Priority Programme (DPP) – a ‘fast-track’ programme for local government reorganisation (LGR) and devolution:
- Cumbria
- Cheshire & Warrington
- Norfolk & Suffolk
- Greater Essex
- Sussex & Brighton
- Hampshire & Solent
All six of these areas have now submitted proposals for consideration by Ministers.
It follows the English Devolution White Paper, published in December 2024, in which the Government set out the steps all local authorities in England must take to abolish the two-tier system of local government and create new strategic authorities to oversee regional planning and infrastructure delivery.
Here’s Cavendish’s quick round-up of all the options under consideration:
Hampshire & Solent Region
Hampshire is one of the most complicated parts of England to reorganise, and will likely be one of the most expensive to deliver.
Local authorities in Hampshire have not achieved consensus and are split into two ‘camps’. The first is a ‘Hampshire Coalition’ of 12 councils, comprising the unitaries of Portsmouth, Southampton, and the Isle of Wight, as well as the districts.
The second is a partnership between Hampshire County Council and East Hampshire District Council. Gosport Borough Council have refused to take part in any LGR plans out of opposition to the entire LGR process, so they form part of neither ‘side’.
The one thing that all councils in the region agree upon is that the Isle of Wight should remain an independent unitary (while part of the wider Hampshire and the Solent Combined Authority), despite it falling short of the Government’s minimum population target of 500,000. Where the two sides differ is whether there should be three or four unitaries on the ‘Hampshire Mainland’.
The Hampshire Coalition of 12 authorities have submitted a business case to Government calling for a 4-unitary unitary authority on the Hampshire Mainland, whereas the County Council have proposed a business case calling for three on the Mainland.
Coalition Plan – A 4-unitary option on the “Hampshire Mainland”
There are three ‘Options’ contained within the Hampshire Coalition proposal. All three Options push for four unitaries comprising a Greater Southampton Council, a ‘South West Hampshire Council (a kind of Greater Portsmouth Council), a Mid Hampshire Council, and a North Hampshire Council. The difference between the three Options relates to the exact shape of the Mid Hampshire Council, the Greater Southampton Council, and the South West Hampshire Council based around Portsmouth. The detail of the three Options within the Coalition Plan are set out below:
- Greater Southampton Council
Option 1: A simple merger of Southampton City Council and Eastleigh Borough Council.
Option 2: A merger of Southampton City Council, Eastleigh Borough Council, and also New Forest District Council. (New Forest have been especially vocal about protecting their rural identity and have expressed concern about the different needs of a rural area compared with the needs of an urban council such as Southampton).
Option 3: A merger of Southampton City Council and Eastleigh Borough Council, but with boundary changes to secure neighbouring parishes of Test Valley Borough Council and Waterside parishes of New Forest Distrct Council.
- South West Hampshire Council
Option 1 and Option 2: A merger of Fareham Borough Council, Gosport Borough Council, and; Havant Borough Council and Portsmouth City Council.
Option 3: A merger of Fareham Borough Council, Gosport Borough Council, and; Havant Borough Council and Portsmouth City Council, plus boundary changes to bring parishes of East Hampshire Council into the new unitary.
- Mid Hampshire Council
Option 1: A merger of New Forest District Council, Test Valley Borough Council, Winchester City Council, and East Hampshire District Council.
Option 2: A merger of Test Valley Borough Council, Winchester City Council, and East Hampshire District Council – with the New Forest joining the Greater Southampton Council).
Option 3: A merger of the four councils listed in Option 1, but with certain parishes of Test Valley Borough Council and New Forest District Council lost to Greater Southampton Council. There would also be boundary changes to East Hampshire District Council, with those wards affected joining the Greater Portsmouth Council.
- North Hampshire Council
Option 1, 2 and 3: In all three options proposed by the Hampshire Coalition, a North Hampshire Council would involve a merger of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council; Hart District Council, and Rushmoor Borough Council.
“The County Plan”
Hampshire County Council (HCC) and East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) broke away from the joint talks to propose their own, rival, alternative three-unitary option on the Hampshire Mainland.
This would comprise of three new unitaries:
- West Hampshire Council
This would include a merger of Southampton City Council, Eastleigh Borough Council, New Forest District Council, and Test Valley Borough Council.
- Mid-North Hampshire Council
This would include a merger of Winchester City Council, East Hampshire District Council, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, Hart District Council, and Rushmoor Borough Council.
- South-East Hampshire Council
This would include a merger of Fareham Borough Council, Portsmouth City Council, Gosport Borough Council, and Havant Borough Council.
Hampshire County Council and East Hampshire District Council argue that their three-unitary model would be the best way to safeguard ‘upper tier’ statutory services, such as adult social care and children’s services The three unitaries would effectively be enlarged continuations of the three existing upper tier service providers of Southampton City Council, Hampshire County Council, and Portsmouth City Council.
On the other hand, the County Council’s proposal has been subject to considerable criticism from the Hampshire Coalition on the basis that it would deliver unitaries that are too large to be close and accountable to the residents it serves.
The Hampshire Coalition continue to argue that their options of four unitary authorities represent the best solution, with those proposed authorities “close enough to be local, but big enough to care approach.”
Essex
Three main options have been put forward for Essex:
- Five councils – backed by a growing coalition of authorities, designed around “real communities” and travel-to-work areas. This model would see new unitaries created for:
- Braintree, Colchester and Tendring
- Uttlesford, Harlow and Epping Forest
- Brentwood, Chelmsford and Maldon
- Basildon and Thurrock
- Rochford, Castle Point and Southend-on-Sea
Councils including Brentwood, Chelmsford, Harlow, Tendring and Castle Point have all formally supported this approach. For many of these districts, the appeal is clear: the five-council option would create authorities that are big enough to be financially sustainable but small enough to preserve local identity. Leaders argue that this is the best way to maintain a strong voice for their communities and avoid being “swallowed up” in larger units.
- Three councils – Essex County Council’s preferred model, consolidating services into North, Central and South Essex. This option is formally supported by the County Council itself and, following a recent indicative vote, by Epping Forest District Council, where a majority of councillors backed the three-unitary proposal. The County’s argument is rooted in scale and efficiency: fewer councils means greater savings, simpler service delivery, and easier alignment with major infrastructure corridors like the A12, A13 and West Anglia rail line. But critics fear that such large unitaries — some covering populations of more than 700,000 — would be too remote from residents and would dilute local political accountability.
- Four councils – alternative maps, including the “Best4Essex” model led by Rochford and supported by Thurrock. These proposals tend to emerge from areas that are sceptical of both extremes — wanting more than three units to preserve identity, but less fragmentation than five. So far, however, the four-unitary approach has not built broad consensus.
At the heart of the debate lie three intertwined issues: identity, finance and politics. Districts backing five councils argue that smaller unitaries would better reflect “real communities” and preserve accountability, while the County Council insists that only larger unitaries can deliver the scale of savings and resilience needed for rising social care costs. Thurrock’s financial fragility complicates the picture further, with some warning a larger South Essex unit could inherit unsustainable debt. And overlaying it all is politics, with each of the parties considering what the implications could be in terms of political control of the new authorities.
Norfolk
There are three competing plans for local government reorganisation in Norfolk. The main divide is between Norfolk County Council which favours one single authority, and six of the seven district councils, which have proposed a three-unitary authority model. South Norfolk District Council are alone in proposing the creation of two authorities.
Option 1 – A Single Authority
The plan put forward by Norfolk County Council which would see the existing district councils replaced by one single large authority prioritises financial efficiency. The Conservative leader of the council Cllr Kay Mason Billig has stated that this plan “saves the most money, is cheaper to run and avoids fragmentation of services”. The Council argues that a single authority would remove duplication, reduce bureaucracy and save £36.2 million per year which could then be reinvested. The County Council claims that this financially strengthened single authority would then be able to deliver improved and joined up services, avoiding the disruption, risks and costs associated with other proposals.
However, the plans are controversial with opposition groups on Norfolk County Council with Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and Reform expressing concerns that such a large authority would be too remote from the people it aims to serve, with the estimated population of this single authority around 932,000.
Option 2 – Three Unitary Authorities
The model preferred by six of the seven district councils would see Norfolk run by three unitary authorities combining the following:
- Great Yarmouth, Broadland and South Norfolk, along with most of north Norfolk
- Remainder of North Norfolk, Breckland and King’s Lynn and west Norfolk
- Norwich, with the possibility of its boundaries expanding
This proposal prioritises ensuring authorities remain local, with a strong understanding of the communities they serve. Each of the three proposed unitary would have a population of around 300,000, well below the government’s target of at least 500,000.
The district councils have admitted the plans would likely be more expensive. Norfolk County Council has warned that any authority covering the west of Norfolk would be “financially unviable from the start.”
Option 3 – Two Authorities
South Norfolk District Council have broken away from the other district councils to propose a two unitary authority model. This would see Norwich, Broadland, Great Yarmouth and South Norfolk combine to form one council and the rest of the county combining to form the other.
The Conservative leader of South Norfolk Council, Daniel Elmer, has argued that this proposal would strike “the right balance between delivering cost effective public services” and “protecting the identities of our local communities and local economy”.
Suffolk
In Suffolk, the County Council’s proposal to create one unitary authority is at odds with the five district and borough councils’ plans to establish three unitary authorities The County Council was critical of the district and borough councils’ perceived lack of transparency and detail, especially early in the process.
Option 1 – One Suffolk
The One Suffolk proposal would see the existing six county, district and borough councils replaced by a single authority. The Conservative-led County Council claims this could save up to £39.4 million per year, with the majority of savings coming from staff cuts and renegotiating contracts. The Council’s pledges have included:
- Levelling council tax to the lowest current level, ensuring all residents see either a reduction or freeze in their rate
- A unified planning framework across the county
- £40 million capital investment fund for towns
- Increased powers for town and parish councils
- A review of parking charges
Cllr Richard Rout, Suffolk County Council’s cabinet member for local government reform has argued that the One Suffolk proposal is the “only financially resilient model, ensuring that savings are reinvested into local services”.
Option 2 – Three Unitary Authorities
The plans put forward by Suffolk’s five district and borough councils would create three authorities, provisionally named Central and Eastern Suffolk, Western Suffolk, and Ipswich and Southern Suffolk. The start-up cost of this proposal would be high, potentially around £39 million; however, the councils argue that the plans “will pay for themselves within five years”.
The plans are the product of collaboration between Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green and Independent councillors from West Suffolk, East Suffolk, Babergh, Mid Suffolk and Ipswich. They argue that that the initial cost of separating services would eventually generate £34 million in yearly savings, of which £20 million could then be reinvested. Like the County’s submission, district and borough council’s have promised a levelling of council tax. The councils argue this model would provide the people of Suffolk with councils which are close to their communities, responsive to local needs and good value for money.
Sussex and Brighton & Hove
In Sussex, the three top tier councils are all fighting for their own vision for the area, which rival proposals from East Sussex, West Sussex and Brighton & Hove.
East Sussex County Council is proposing a single unitary authority covering the current county footprint, which is supported by four out of five of the district and borough councils within it. ESCC argues that the “One East Sussex” is the only option for LGR in East Sussex that:
- Aligns with existing service delivery footprints (e.g. social care, education, public health)
- Minimises disruption to statutory services and partnerships
- Builds on established collaboration across the six councils
- Meets the government’s population guidance and maintains a coherent geographic identity
- Creates operational savings and avoids the substantial costs of disaggregating services
Wealden District Council has rejected this proposal, warning it would be too remote to serve residents effectively. Whilst instead supporting the principle of five smaller unitary councils across Sussex (as outlined in Brighton & Hove’s alternative proposal), Wealden has chosen not to submit a preferred plan to government, saying it has not had insufficient time to properly examine the detailed boundary and financial arrangements.
Brighton & Hove’s proposal would see a total of five unitary authorities across Sussex (covering West Sussex, East Sussex and Brighton & Hove), with Brighton & Hove expanding to take in additional population from neighbouring authorities, including areas like Saltdean, Telscombe Cliffs, Peacehaven, and Falmer. Each authority would serve between 300,000 to 400,000 residents. It is believed that the proposal could unlock £52.4 million in annual net benefits for the region.
Brighton & Hove believe a five-unitary model aligns strongly with government criteria, offering the right size and scale, high quality and sustainable services, support for devolution and community empowerment.
However, the proposal has faced criticism from neighbouring councils, particularly Lewes District Council, which cited lack of consultation and high costs – estimated at nearly £200 million.
Meanwhile, West Sussex County Council, along with its seven district and borough councils, has developed a business case presenting two viable options:
Option A – A large single unitary covering all of West Sussex
Option B – Two smaller unitaries
Option B consists of two different footprint options that meet the Government’s criteria – Option B1 – broadly west / east, or Option B2 – broadly south west / north east.
Both options would split the county into two separate councils, the only difference between the two is where Adur would sit. Option B1 would consist of one unitary combining Arun, Chichester and Worthing, and one unitary combining Adur, Crawley, Horsham, and Mid Sussex. Option B2 would consist of one unitary combining Adur, Arun, Chichester and Worthing, and one unitary combining Crawley, Horsham, and Mid Sussex footprints.
Cumbria
Following years of deliberation and consultation, Cumbria County Council and the six district councils were reorganised into two unitary authorities; Cumberland Council and Westmorland & Furness Council.
Both Councils held elections in May 2022, commencing as ‘shadow authorities’. On 1st April 2023 both authorities were legally constituted – absorbing all functions of the former county and district councils.
Both Councils have got off to a rocky start, struggling to find the suggested savings of reorganisation.
Entry to the DPP has received a mixed reaction. Conservatives have long argued for a county-wide mayoral authority, while the Liberal Democrats have been keen to decouple the industrial towns of West Cumbria from the rural communities of South Cumbria. While a Labour government is bringing forward these proposals, local members remain divided on the merits of a mayoral authority.
Cumberland and Westmorland Councils agreed a joint position in July 2025 – they welcomed inclusion in the DPP and the prospect of a mayoral authority.
Both Councils are currently deliberating officer reports, with multiple committee meetings in the coming weeks. A final decision on whether to proceed will be taken at full council on 14th October.
If approved – as is expected – the mayoral authority will come into being in 2026, with the first election held in May 2027.
Cheshire and Warrington
All three local councils – Cheshire East, Cheshire West & Chester and Warrington – have now approved the framework to establish a new mayoral strategic authority that will come into being next year.
Elections for the first Mayor won’t now be held until May 2027 – to coincide with all-out elections due to take place in Cheshire East and Cheshire West & Chester.
Next Steps
Following the submission to government on those areas listed above, it is expected that government will launch a public consultation in November 2025, that will run until the New Year – it is unknown how many of the options submitted will be included within these public consultations.
MHCLG will then issue a ministerial decision on the shape of the new unitary authorities in March 2026, to enable Shadow Authority elections in May 2027, with a ‘go-live’ date planned for April 2028.
Surrey is taking a different route—restructuring its local government ahead of devolution due to financial challenges. Over the summer of 2025, the Government ran a seven-week consultation following two competing proposals for how Surrey’s councils should be reshaped. The consultation closed in August 2025, and Ministers are now reviewing the feedback. A decision is expected in Autumn 2025, which will set the stage for Shadow Authority elections in May 2026. If all goes to plan, the newly formed councils will officially launch in April 2027.
For those areas that did not get accepted onto the DPP, they have until the 28th November 2025 to submit their final proposals to government. It is expected that an accelerated timescale would see a public consultation held between December – January 2026, followed by a decision by February 2027. This would be followed by shadow elections in May 2027, with the new unitary authorities coming into force in April 2028.
