Joanne Pitt outlines five takeaways from the frontline of local government reorganisation.
Local government reorganisation (LGR) can sometimes be sold as a route to streamlined structures and savings. But a recent CIPFA and Norse Group roundtable revealed a far messier reality. Councils aren’t just merging organisational charts – they’re inheriting service models, supply chains and historic contracts that rarely line up neatly.
From capacity pressures to supply chain challenges, the discussion highlighted five key takeaways for councils navigating this complex process.
1. Capacity remains the unspoken constraint
One finance lead summed up the pressure: their teams were already stretched before reorganisation began and the extra workload has pushed them further. Transformation projects that were in motion are now paused because business-as-usual, combined with the demands of LGR, absorbs nearly all available capacity. This has direct implications for delivery models.
Several officers also questioned the value of detailed planning for individual new transformation projects when potential mergers may soon reshape the landscape. As one put it, there is little sense progressing detailed work if the wider system is already moving ahead of it.
2. Delivery models hinge on people and supply chains
A recurring point remains the gap between delivery model design and real-world constraints, particularly around property services. Many authorities already struggle to recruit surveyors, planners and secure contractors for existing workloads. Scaling up to a larger unitary where inheriting estates in very different conditions compounds the issue.
Some at the roundtable described housing contracts where local suppliers struggled to keep pace with demand. This left councils reliant on larger national firms because no other option exists. This reality disrupts assumptions that bigger contracts will naturally produce better prices.
3. Aggregation and disaggregation require judgement
The roundtable challenged the idea that aggregation is inevitable in LGR. Several participants noted that some people-focused services, such as aspects of social care, already operate effectively on district footprints and can continue to do so.
Others accepted that aggregation is necessary in certain areas but cautioned against treating it as a default position. The simple divide between ‘county logic’ and ‘district logic’ breaks down when each service is examined on its own terms.
The shared advice was to avoid deciding too early what must be split or combined; delivery models should align with the way services actually function and focus on outcomes.
4. Decisions depend on up-to-date data
Several participants highlighted the risk of building major proposals on outdated or incomplete information. Asset condition data was the clearest example. Where recent surveys are lacking, councils enter merger discussions with limited understanding of future liabilities.
Some noted that published business-case assumptions have already drifted due to ageing datasets. In a few places, asset and contract information is more than five years old but still underpins savings forecasts. The message was straightforward: assumptions must be refreshed regularly, because proposals represent a moment in time, not a fixed description of reality.
5. Supply chains won’t adjust themselves
There was candid discussion about the potential impact on local suppliers. Larger procurement exercises may reduce administrative complexity – fewer invoices, simpler oversight – but they can also deter SMEs. Even when councils encourage smaller firms to bid many choose not to, often due to additional compliance requirements. Still, the group saw space for adaptation.
Some expected that SMEs may increasingly partner with larger providers rather than bidding independently. It won’t replicate the current market, but it could create a workable route for smaller firms to remain involved.
New delivery models must recognise with the realities of each service, shaped by workforce gaps, market conditions and contract obligations. Savings assumptions will also need constant review, as underlying data ages and liabilities shift.
It’s worth bearing in mind that the ‘easy’ efficiencies have largely been realised; further gains will take time and careful management.
LGR can open doors to improvement, but it is no shortcut. As the roundtable discussion made clear, success will depend on steady leadership, robust data and the capacity to make decisions.
- Joanne Pitt, Senior Policy Manager, CIPFA
