Following the December update, Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) in England has now entered a decisive implementation phase. On 25 March 2026, the Secretary of State wrote to each of the areas and provided a written ministerial statement outlining his decision to implement the following proposals subject to Parliamentary approval:

• A five-unitary council model in Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock;
• A five-unitary council model (known locally as option 1A) in Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton
• A three-unitary council model in Norfolk; and
  
• A three-unitary council model in Suffolk.

Government has opted for between three and five unitary models in these four areas, and the Secretary of State reaffirmed that these decisions were made on a “case-by-case basis”.

A further letter was sent to the Chief Executives of each of the authorities with information about the implementation. This includes information on the decisions the Ministers have taken in relation to the Structural Changes Orders, including the names of the new unitary councils, the joint committee membership for each and the implemental team, as well as the additional information required before the end of May.

The Secretary of State has also committed to provide funding of £900,000 per new unitary authority to support the effective establishment of new councils and assist with the transition costs.

Essex: A Five-Unitary Model

Four proposals had been submitted from authorities within Essex, ranging from three to five unitary authorities. The Government has decided to implement the five-unitary model which was put forward by 10 of the 15 authorities (Basildon Borough Council, Brentwood Borough Council, Castle Point Borough Council, Chelmsford City Council, Colchester City Council, Harlow Council, Maldon District Council, Southend-on-Sea Council, Tendring District Council, and Uttlesford District Council).

This will create five new unitary authorities, each aligned to a distinct economic centre, including Chelmsford, Colchester, Basildon/Thurrock, Harlow and Southend:

• West Essex Council (current local government areas of Epping Forest, Harlow and Uttlesford)
• North East Essex Council (current local government areas of Braintree, Colchester and Tendring)
• Mid Essex Council (current local government areas of Brentwood, Chelmsford and Maldon)
• South West Essex Council (current local government areas of Basildon and Thurrock)
• South East Essex Council (current local government areas of Castle Point, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea)

The Government noted that although all the proposals met the criteria, the five-unitary proposal best met the criteria – particularly because this model was shared by the communities across the area and reflected local identities. Support from 10 of the 15 authorities and feedback from the consultation also demonstrated this fact.

The South West Essex Joint Committee and shadow authority will need to have regard to the Thurrock Best Value intervention, including Commissioner reports and directions, when preparing and reviewing the implementation plan. Government has reaffirmed their commitment to repay in-principle £200 million of Thurrock Council’s debt in 2026-2027. This in-principle support is subject to further assurance of the Council’s finances and ongoing asset disposals, divestments, and other local actions being taken to ensure financial sustainability.

Hampshire & the Solent: A Five-Unitary Model

In Hampshire, following the consultation of the four proposals submitted, the Government has decided to move forward with implementation of the five-unitary authority proposal (option 1A) brought forward by Eastleigh Borough Council, Fareham Borough Council, Hart District Council, Havant Borough Council, Portsmouth City Council, Rushmoor Borough Council and Southampton City Council. This would retain the Isle of Wight Council and create the following four new councils:

• North Hampshire Council (current local government areas of Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor)
• Mid Hampshire Council (current local government areas of East Hampshire, New Forest, Test Valley and Winchester, less 11 parishes from all four areas)
• South East Hampshire Council (current local government areas from East Hampshire, Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Portsmouth, three parishes from East Hampshire and one parish from Winchester)
• South West Hampshire Council (current local government areas of Eastleigh, four parishes from New Forest, Southampton and three parishes from Test Valley)

The Secretary of State has used its powers to modify the base proposal to make the boundary changes requested. This will strengthen alignment and expand the effective footprint of urban areas, ensuring that surrounding districts are grouped in ways that support housing delivery and infrastructure planning.

The Government confirmed all proposals met the criteria, but this proposal was preferred primarily because it presented the strongest case on financial sustainability, which the Government treated as a decisive factor. In addition, it aligns closely with the functional economic geography of the area, particularly of Portsmouth and Southampton.

This decision illustrates that Government is using LGR not only to simplify structures, but to reshape local governance around city-region economies.

Crucially, the Secretary of State commented that the unitary proposal (option 1A) provides a balanced and robust foundation for Mayoral Strategic Authority arrangements, and the Government will continue to work with all the authorities to support the Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority.

Norfolk: A Three-Unitary Model

In Norfolk, the Government has decided to implement the following three unitary authorities, with a significantly expanded Greater Norwich authority at its core. This was one of the three proposals that were put forward and consulted on and was brought forward by Breckland Council, Broadland District Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, North Norfolk District Council and Norwich City Council:

• West Norfolk Council (current local government areas of Breckland, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, and nine parishes from South Norfolk)
• Greater Norwich Council (current local government areas of Norwich, 19 parishes from Broadland, and 16 parishes from South Norfolk)
• East Norfolk Council (current local government areas of Broadland (less 19 parishes), Great Yarmouth, North Norfolk, and South Norfolk (less 25 parishes))

The implementation of this proposal also includes a number of requested boundary changes.

Whilst it was noted by Government that each of the proposals met all the criteria, Government judged that the proposal for three-unitary authorities best met the criteria overall. The Government’s rationale was that this model would better reflect Norfolk’s communities and local identities, drawing on a detailed understanding of local need. It also establishes councils that are better aligned to Norfolk’s distinct communities and will therefore be able to design and deliver public services that respond more effectively to local priorities across Norfolk’s different urban, rural, and coastal areas. The Government further considered the need to provide effective and balanced representation in Norfolk and Suffolk’s future Mayoral Strategic Authority.

Notably, all three authorities fall below the Government’s guiding principle of the 500,000 population threshold. However, this was considered appropriate on the basis Government is of the view that it produces a more coherent and effective outcome for Norfolk.

Suffolk: A Three-Unitary Model

In Suffolk, the Government has rejected the proposal from Suffolk County Council for a single county-wide authority in favour of a three-unitary proposal reflecting western, central/eastern and Ipswich-centred geographies. This proposal was submitted by Babergh District Council, East Suffolk District Council, Ipswich Borough Council, Mid Suffolk District Council, and West Suffolk District Council.

The following councils will be created:

• Western Suffolk Council (current local government areas of West Suffolk, 21 parishes from Mid Suffolk, and Babergh (less 31 parishes))
• Central and Eastern Suffolk Council (current local government areas of Mid Suffolk (less 29 parishes), and East Suffolk (less 25 parishes))
• Ipswich and South Suffolk Council (current local government areas of Ipswich, 31 parishes from Babergh, eight parishes from Mid Suffolk, and 25 parishes from East Suffolk).

Again, whilst it was acknowledged by Government that both proposals met the criteria, the three-unitary proposal was considered to best meet the criteria overall. It better reflects the regional, cultural, social, and economic patterns across Suffolk, provides new councils that would reflect the different local identities and communities across Suffolk, and would more effectively support Ipswich’s role as the key urban area across Suffolk.

Implementation of the proposal will require boundary changes which have been justified on the grounds that three smaller unitaries would better reflect Suffolk’s distinct areas and local identities. Government noted that the boundary design and governance arrangements of the three-unitary proposal present a way of balancing urban centres with surrounding rural areas while maintaining distinct identities.
As with Norfolk, it was acknowledged that while all three new councils are below the 500,000 level, this proposal was appropriate because it produces a more coherent and effective outcome for Suffolk.

The Government also believes that the three-unitary proposal would provide the best balance within the planned Mayoral Strategic Authority for Norfolk and Suffolk.

Sussex: Direction of Travel and Emerging Model

While Government made decisions about four of the six areas in the Devolution Priority Programme, no final decision has yet been made for East Sussex & Brighton and Hove and West Sussex. In his recent update, the Secretary of State notified these two areas that he was not yet in a position to make a decision and expressed his concerns with existing proposals.

In particular, he has concerns around the costs associated with implementing the five unitary pan Sussex proposal from Brighton and Hove City Council, and concerns about the disaggregation risks this proposal carries. It was noted that the two-unitary proposal for East Sussex and Brighton from East Sussex County Council, Eastbourne Borough Council, Hastings Borough Council, Lewes District Council and Rother District Council has some positive strengths, but there were concerns about keeping Brighton and Hove on its current footprint.

In West Sussex, further consideration is being had to ensure that the proposals reflect the distinct communities and identities in the area, while maintaining balance under the Mayoral Combined Authority.

The Secretary of State has therefore been considering potential modifications to the proposals. In his letter to the leaders of the authorities, he has included an alternative option for further consideration. This would introduce four-unitary authorities for Sussex:

• Unitary A: Eastbourne, Hastings, Rother, Wealden and remaining parts of Lewes (pop: around 537,000)
• Unitary B: Arun, Adur, Worthing (pop: around 349,000)
• Unitary C: Brighton plus following wards and parish from Lewes (as requested) – East Saltdean & Telscombe Cliffs, Peacehaven West, Peacehaven East, Peacehaven North, Falmer Parish (from Kingston ward) (pop: around 308,000)
• Unitary D: Crawley, Chichester, Horsham, Mid Sussex (around 566,000)

Implementation and Programme Timeline

In the ministerial statement dated 25 March 2026, Government reaffirmed its commitment to the timetable it previously set out, with elections to the new unitary councils taking place in May 2027 ahead of councils going live and delivering services in April 2028.

1. Spring – Summer 2026: mobilisation, detailed design and further consultation where required
2. Autumn 2026: Structural Changes Orders made, establishing new authorities in law
3. Late 2026 – Early 2027: shadow authorities created and transitional governance begins
4. May 2027: elections to new unitary councils
5. June 2027 – March 2028: implementation phase, including service integration and system migration
6. April 2028: vesting day, with new authorities assuming full powers

This timetable allows approximately 18 to 24 months for full transformation, requiring early and disciplined programme management.

In terms of implementation, the immediate priorities for the authorities going through LGR will include:

1. Inputting into the draft Structural Changes Order prepared by Government
2. Establishing programme governance structures
3. Undertaking legal, financial and operational due diligence
4. Mapping contracts, assets, workforce and ICT systems
5. Identifying risks and dependencies

It is important that authorities put in place effective plans for early mobilisation as this will be critical to ensure readiness for legislative change.

Authorities will then need to develop the following as part of the transition arrangements:

1. Governance frameworks for the new shadow authorities, including constitutions and decision-making arrangements
2. Financial strategies, including council tax harmonisation
3. Workforce transition plans
4. Service delivery and ICT operating models

Once established, the shadow authorities will need take a number of key decisions in preparing for transition, including:

1. Approving governance arrangements
2. Setting budgets and council tax
3. Appointing senior officers

Effective early mobilisation and transition planning, together with due diligence, will assist the Councils during this implementation stage. Consideration will need to be given to the following during this phase:

1. Workforce transfer and restructuring
2. Contract novation and asset transfer
3. Property transfer
4. ICT and data migration
5. Final financial alignment

On vesting day (1 April 2028), the new authorities will assume full legal responsibility and existing councils will be abolished. There should be a seamless transfer of services. Following the vesting day, the focus will then shift to stabilisation and longer-term transformation of the new Councils.

The LGR programme presents a number of significant risks, particularly in the early stages, including:

1. Judicial review challenges
2. Financial instability
3. ICT and data migration failures
4. Workforce disruption
5. Governance ambiguity during transition

These risks will require proactive management and strong legal and programme oversight.

Conclusion

For local authorities, the challenge is now to deliver a complex transformation within a compressed timeframe while maintaining lawful governance and service continuity.

LGR should therefore be approached not as a structural adjustment, but as a major transformation programme requiring strong governance, rigorous planning and disciplined execution.

How Capsticks Can Help

To discuss anything relating to the contents of this insight or the impact on your organisation, contact our Head of Local Government Tiffany Cloynes, Principal Associate Rebecca Gilbert or Senior Associate Megan Tam to find out more about how Capsticks can help.

To hear more about local government reorganisation, join a webinar with our experts on Thursday 23 April. Find out more details here.