Splitting responsibility between district and county councils creates inefficiency, duplication, and confusion

Gavin Callaghan is the Labour leader of Basildon Council

It’s probably a stretch to describe it as a media buzz, but it’s rare that local government makes the leap from the pages of trade journals like the Municipal Journal and the Local Government Chronicle into the Times. That the impending English Devolution White Paper has done so is testament to the scale of the change that looks set to be proposed in places like Essex.

I’m hugely excited about what I’ve heard so far. It’s proof that the government is serious about making the big changes that are needed to get the Essex economy growing again, homes built, skills improved, roads modernised and transport overhauled. 

With a Labour government ready to drive real change, and with Ministers like Jim McMahon and advisors such as Pete Robbins and Morgan McSweeney—whose deep experience in local government provides them with an unmatched understanding of the issues and political landscape—I feel incredibly confident about the future.

But there’s one aspect of the trails being laid ahead of the White Paper’s publication that is bugging me and I worry that it’s emblematic of an approach and attitude that might mean the outcomes of local government reorganisation aren’t as significant as they could be.

The Times reports that Ministers “are thought to believe that two-tier local government structures are inefficient and have blamed district councils for building up cash reserves rather than spending the money on improving public services. District councils are also seen as blockers to growth by regularly rejecting housing developments.”

Whatever briefing or breadcrumbs have led journalists to believe this is the view of Ministers, the reality is very different. Sure, there are districts that want to preserve their place in aspic and cosplay as a 1950s theme village, but they are in my experience few and far between.

District councils like mine in Basildon are moving at pace to protect the vulnerable, deliver new homes and build council homes, and boost local economies. Rather than kicking against development, districts approve around 90% of their planning applications. They are trying to build new homes and investing in public realm and economic development policies to boost the high street and bring jobs and skills to their places.

All of that is made harder in the two-tier system. Splitting responsibility between district and county councils creates inefficiency, duplication, and confusion. For residents, it’s unclear who does what. For councils, it’s a constant battle over resources, priorities, and accountability. The real reason developments stall isn’t local opposition or council obstruction—it’s the lack of infrastructure.

And who’s responsible for that infrastructure? County councils. Districts can approve plans for new homes, but without the roads, schools, healthcare facilities, and public transport that counties are supposed to deliver, those homes remain unbuilt or unfit for residents. Tory-led county councils are failing to provide the infrastructure needed to support growth, leaving district councils to take the blame.

Unitary authorities offer a way forward. By combining the roles of districts and counties into single-tier councils, unitaries can take a joined-up approach to housing, infrastructure, and service delivery. This streamlined system eliminates the duplication and buck-passing that plague the two-tier model.

The move to unitary authorities would be particularly transformative for housebuilding. With planning and infrastructure under one roof, unitary councils can ensure that developments are supported by the roads, schools, and services they need from the outset. This holistic approach would not only speed up the delivery of new homes but also ensure they are built to a higher standard, creating sustainable communities rather than soulless estates.

So why am I so irked by the line that districts are holding us back when I want to abolish mine?

It’s because I think it reflects the presumption in Whitehall that the view of the county carries more weight than the more numerous but more nuanced views of districts. The other evidence of that presumption is seen in one other trail in that Times article – that larger unitary authorities with populations of at least 500,000 people are preferred.

It’s an easy and attractive mistake to make: talk to one local leader rather than a dozen, read one luxuriously-resourced proposal rather than one put together on a shoestring.

But I think it’s a mistake for two reasons. First, because it’s inevitable in new unitaries that size you’ll get more than one local economic geography reflected in the new boundaries. Replacing a mini-me version of counties spread across multiple functional economic areas is a recipe for inefficiency and tension.

Second, population projections mean that what is a functional-looking council area of half a million residents now can and will grow in a generation to become a third bigger, undermining many of the arguments about local delivery and representation.

Councils of that size would be looking to have one of their first conversations with Whitehall to be about reducing housebuilding targets in these areas to ensure rapid population growth doesn’t put pressure on public services. This goes against what Labour is trying to achieve. 

We hear lots about unitaries that are too small to be viable, but the reality is that councils with a minimum of 500,000 – 700,000 residents on vesting day means a reality of creating regional, not local councils. That’s a pathway to problems and likely Whitehall intervention down the road.

New unitaries with populations of around 350,000 and coherent economic geographies and travel to work areas are where we should be looking and that’s a view backed up by leaders and chief executives right across the sector. In Essex that would mean five new councils ready to deliver on the health, homes, journeys and jobs that communities and government alike need.

As the party of fairness and progress, Labour is uniquely placed to lead this charge and I’m impressed and proud that we have grasped the nettle. We understand the value of well-funded, efficient public services and the importance of local accountability. We know that housing isn’t just about hitting targets—it’s about creating homes where people can thrive.

We believe in a modern, effective system of local government that empowers communities, delivers results, and tackles the challenges we face head-on. The White Paper is an opportunity to make that vision a reality—but only if we’re honest about what’s really holding us back.

Image credit: Keir Starmer – Creative Commons

Comments are closed.